<?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 346 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96241</link>
    <description>Refund limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is excluded only where duty is paid under protest in compliance with Rule 233B. A mere RG 23C Part-II endorsement and a later letter intimating debit and an intention to seek refund did not state that duty was paid under protest or disclose the grounds of protest; substantial compliance was not established. The refund claim was therefore held time-barred, and exclusion of limitation was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:50:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 346 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96241</link>
      <description>Refund limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is excluded only where duty is paid under protest in compliance with Rule 233B. A mere RG 23C Part-II endorsement and a later letter intimating debit and an intention to seek refund did not state that duty was paid under protest or disclose the grounds of protest; substantial compliance was not established. The refund claim was therefore held time-barred, and exclusion of limitation was denied.</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=96241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>