<?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 (4) TMI 348 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91613</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the letter requesting condonation of delay did not constitute a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal determined that the subsequent claim filed within the specified period was valid, citing provisions allowing for condonation of delay in submitting the required certificate. The Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, finding no substantial legal issue warranting referral to the High Court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:13:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 348 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91613</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the letter requesting condonation of delay did not constitute a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal determined that the subsequent claim filed within the specified period was valid, citing provisions allowing for condonation of delay in submitting the required certificate. The Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, finding no substantial legal issue warranting referral to the High Court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91613</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>