<?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 551 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96258</link>
    <description>In provisional assessment cases, the six-month refund limitation under Section 11B ran from the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment, not from the date of duty payment under the amended explanation. The amendment in sub-clause (e) of the explanation applied only to a person other than a manufacturer, so it did not apply to a registered manufacturer. The amended explanation therefore did not govern the assessee, and the reference application was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:41:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 551 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96258</link>
      <description>In provisional assessment cases, the six-month refund limitation under Section 11B ran from the date of finalisation of the provisional assessment, not from the date of duty payment under the amended explanation. The amendment in sub-clause (e) of the explanation applied only to a person other than a manufacturer, so it did not apply to a registered manufacturer. The amended explanation therefore did not govern the assessee, and the reference application was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>