<?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>2004 (8) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112258</link>
    <description>For refund limitation purposes, the original debit in the personal ledger account was treated as the relevant date, because the later debit and reversal were made unilaterally by the assessee without authority and only to neutralise an intervening credit entry. The later entry did not reset the limitation period. Applying that date, the refund application filed thereafter was beyond time and was rejected as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:17:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 427 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112258</link>
      <description>For refund limitation purposes, the original debit in the personal ledger account was treated as the relevant date, because the later debit and reversal were made unilaterally by the assessee without authority and only to neutralise an intervening credit entry. The later entry did not reset the limitation period. Applying that date, the refund application filed thereafter was beyond time and was rejected as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112258</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>