<?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>2002 (11) TMI 593 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107338</link>
    <description>A succession certificate issued after judicial verification of deposit can support refund of redemption fine without insisting on the original TR-6 challan, where payment of the amount is otherwise undisputed and the legal heirs derive entitlement from the unconditional release order. The refund claim on that basis was upheld. However, appellate relief cannot be extended to a claimant who did not challenge the order-in-original, because the order attains finality against that person. The refund direction in favour of the non-appellant claimant was therefore set aside, and relief was confined to the appellant who had properly appealed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 17:15:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144355" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 593 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107338</link>
      <description>A succession certificate issued after judicial verification of deposit can support refund of redemption fine without insisting on the original TR-6 challan, where payment of the amount is otherwise undisputed and the legal heirs derive entitlement from the unconditional release order. The refund claim on that basis was upheld. However, appellate relief cannot be extended to a claimant who did not challenge the order-in-original, because the order attains finality against that person. The refund direction in favour of the non-appellant claimant was therefore set aside, and relief was confined to the appellant who had properly appealed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>