<?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 (12) TMI 686 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99404</link>
    <description>Duty and penalty paid pursuant to an appellate order were treated as payment under protest where the assessee continued to challenge the liability in further appeal. The Tribunal held that the payment was not voluntary, so a separate protest under Rule 233B was unnecessary. On that basis, the limitation period for refund claims under Section 11B could not be invoked against the assessee, and the refund claim was held maintainable and not time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:05:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 686 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99404</link>
      <description>Duty and penalty paid pursuant to an appellate order were treated as payment under protest where the assessee continued to challenge the liability in further appeal. The Tribunal held that the payment was not voluntary, so a separate protest under Rule 233B was unnecessary. On that basis, the limitation period for refund claims under Section 11B could not be invoked against the assessee, and the refund claim was held maintainable and not time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>