<?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>2003 (3) TMI 479 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107494</link>
    <description>A refund claim under Section 11B was held time-barred because it was filed beyond six months from the date of payment, which was treated as the relevant date for limitation. The later return of the sugar quota did not extend or alter the statutory period for claiming refund, so the claim was correctly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:31:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 479 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107494</link>
      <description>A refund claim under Section 11B was held time-barred because it was filed beyond six months from the date of payment, which was treated as the relevant date for limitation. The later return of the sugar quota did not extend or alter the statutory period for claiming refund, so the claim was correctly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>