<?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 (3) TMI 486 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96323</link>
    <description>A refund claim for tax paid twice was held to be governed strictly by the limitation period prescribed in the parent enactment and the relevant rules. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that a claim made before a departmental authority cannot invoke the general law of limitation to extend or bypass the statutory time limit. As the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed period, it was barred by limitation and the rejection of the claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133382" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 486 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96323</link>
      <description>A refund claim for tax paid twice was held to be governed strictly by the limitation period prescribed in the parent enactment and the relevant rules. The Tribunal applied the settled principle that a claim made before a departmental authority cannot invoke the general law of limitation to extend or bypass the statutory time limit. As the refund application was filed beyond the prescribed period, it was barred by limitation and the rejection of the claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>