<?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 (11) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86063</link>
    <description>An exemption notification requiring prior departmental determination of base period and base clearances could still be effectively claimed where the assessee had promptly submitted the necessary particulars to the proper authority; the later revised classification list did not defeat substantive entitlement. For limitation, a declaration seeking the notification&#039;s benefit and an accompanying letter asserting refund of excess duty were treated as a timely refund claim, even though the formal refund application was filed later. The later filing of the formal application alone could not bar relief where the earlier correspondence already disclosed the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:30:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=123130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 155 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86063</link>
      <description>An exemption notification requiring prior departmental determination of base period and base clearances could still be effectively claimed where the assessee had promptly submitted the necessary particulars to the proper authority; the later revised classification list did not defeat substantive entitlement. For limitation, a declaration seeking the notification&#039;s benefit and an accompanying letter asserting refund of excess duty were treated as a timely refund claim, even though the formal refund application was filed later. The later filing of the formal application alone could not bar relief where the earlier correspondence already disclosed the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>