<?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 235 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87985</link>
    <description>A refund claim was not barred by limitation where the assessment remained provisional, because the relevant date for computing limitation is the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment and not the earlier date of payment. The reason why the assessment was made provisional was immaterial, since a provisional assessment does not become final until it is adjusted. The limitation objection therefore could not be sustained and the refund claim was not time-barred on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:40:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 235 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87985</link>
      <description>A refund claim was not barred by limitation where the assessment remained provisional, because the relevant date for computing limitation is the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment and not the earlier date of payment. The reason why the assessment was made provisional was immaterial, since a provisional assessment does not become final until it is adjusted. The limitation objection therefore could not be sustained and the refund claim was not time-barred on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87985</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>