<?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 478 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113846</link>
    <description>Rule 173L permitted refund only where returned goods were brought back to the factory within one year from the date of payment of duty. On the stated facts, duty had been paid on 31-10-1996, but the goods were returned only in 1998, placing the return beyond the prescribed one-year period. As the rule did not allow a different construction on these facts, the refund claim was not maintainable and the assessee was not entitled to refund under Rule 173L.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 17:06:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150852" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 478 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113846</link>
      <description>Rule 173L permitted refund only where returned goods were brought back to the factory within one year from the date of payment of duty. On the stated facts, duty had been paid on 31-10-1996, but the goods were returned only in 1998, placing the return beyond the prescribed one-year period. As the rule did not allow a different construction on these facts, the refund claim was not maintainable and the assessee was not entitled to refund under Rule 173L.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>