<?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 (7) TMI 306 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85558</link>
    <description>A demand of differential excise duty that had already been set aside as time-barred could not be treated as legally recoverable for adjustment against a refund payable to the assessee. Because the Department did not challenge the order annulling the demand on limitation grounds, it had no subsisting enforceable claim and could not deduct that amount from the refund. The adjustment was therefore impermissible and the assessee prevailed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:34:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122625" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 306 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85558</link>
      <description>A demand of differential excise duty that had already been set aside as time-barred could not be treated as legally recoverable for adjustment against a refund payable to the assessee. Because the Department did not challenge the order annulling the demand on limitation grounds, it had no subsisting enforceable claim and could not deduct that amount from the refund. The adjustment was therefore impermissible and the assessee prevailed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>