<?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 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112514</link>
    <description>Refund of duty paid on reprocessed duty-paid goods was held to be within limitation because the claim was filed within six months of payment. The show cause notice itself noted that, under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, no duty was required on such clearances. On those facts, the time-bar objection failed and the refund claim was treated as admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:28:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 417 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112514</link>
      <description>Refund of duty paid on reprocessed duty-paid goods was held to be within limitation because the claim was filed within six months of payment. The show cause notice itself noted that, under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, no duty was required on such clearances. On those facts, the time-bar objection failed and the refund claim was treated as admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>