<?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 (8) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89139</link>
    <description>Erroneous refund recovery after review proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act must be pursued through a notice under Section 11A within the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court authority holding that a review finding a refund sanction erroneous does not by itself authorise recovery outside the statutory notice mechanism. Where no Section 11A notice is issued within time, the recovery action is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:35:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (8) TMI 159 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89139</link>
      <description>Erroneous refund recovery after review proceedings under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act must be pursued through a notice under Section 11A within the prescribed limitation period. The Tribunal followed Supreme Court authority holding that a review finding a refund sanction erroneous does not by itself authorise recovery outside the statutory notice mechanism. Where no Section 11A notice is issued within time, the recovery action is barred by limitation and cannot be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Aug 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>