<?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>1999 (12) TMI 518 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95565</link>
    <description>A refund claim under the Central Excise Act had to be filed within six months from the relevant date, which in the stated facts was the date of payment of duty. Because the application was filed beyond that period and the duty had not been paid under protest, the extended protection attached to protest payments was unavailable. The statutory limitation therefore applied strictly, and the refund claim was time-barred and rightly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:42:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (12) TMI 518 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95565</link>
      <description>A refund claim under the Central Excise Act had to be filed within six months from the relevant date, which in the stated facts was the date of payment of duty. Because the application was filed beyond that period and the duty had not been paid under protest, the extended protection attached to protest payments was unavailable. The statutory limitation therefore applied strictly, and the refund claim was time-barred and rightly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>