<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (5) TMI 170 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85445</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the show cause notice for recovery invalid, determining that the refund claims were not time-barred, and concluding that the Department could not apply amended Section 11B post-refund sanction. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order confirming the demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 11:09:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 170 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85445</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding the show cause notice for recovery invalid, determining that the refund claims were not time-barred, and concluding that the Department could not apply amended Section 11B post-refund sanction. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order confirming the demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85445</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>