<?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>1998 (1) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88319</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the administrative delay in executing the 1989 order did not render the refund claim pending. The amended Section 11B provisions did not apply as the refund had been ordered by a statutory authority and had become final. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:00:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=125384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 216 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88319</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the administrative delay in executing the 1989 order did not render the refund claim pending. The amended Section 11B provisions did not apply as the refund had been ordered by a statutory authority and had become final. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>