<?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 (7) TMI 459 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107879</link>
    <description>For recovery of an erroneously sanctioned refund, limitation under Section 11A ran from the date the refund was actually given effect to by taking credit, not from the date of sanction; on that basis, the notice was held within time. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined entitlement to refund on merits, that issue remained open and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:46:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 459 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107879</link>
      <description>For recovery of an erroneously sanctioned refund, limitation under Section 11A ran from the date the refund was actually given effect to by taking credit, not from the date of sanction; on that basis, the notice was held within time. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had not examined entitlement to refund on merits, that issue remained open and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>