<?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>2001 (7) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96240</link>
    <description>A written refund request for reversed and unutilised Modvat credit was treated as a valid claim for limitation purposes, even though it was not filed in the prescribed form and was initially unsupported by documents. The relevant date for Section 11B limitation was held to be the date of the first written refund claim, and a later formal application related back to that original request. On that basis, the refund claims were within time and the six-month bar did not apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:37:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96240</link>
      <description>A written refund request for reversed and unutilised Modvat credit was treated as a valid claim for limitation purposes, even though it was not filed in the prescribed form and was initially unsupported by documents. The relevant date for Section 11B limitation was held to be the date of the first written refund claim, and a later formal application related back to that original request. On that basis, the refund claims were within time and the six-month bar did not apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>