<?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>2000 (5) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93475</link>
    <description>Refund of central excise duty paid under a supplementary invoice for contractual price escalation was treated as arising from the date of such payment, not from the earlier removal of the goods, for computing limitation. On that basis, the refund application filed within six months of payment was within time. The refund remained subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment and the conditions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:25:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 229 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93475</link>
      <description>Refund of central excise duty paid under a supplementary invoice for contractual price escalation was treated as arising from the date of such payment, not from the earlier removal of the goods, for computing limitation. On that basis, the refund application filed within six months of payment was within time. The refund remained subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment and the conditions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93475</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>