<?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>2006 (3) TMI 378 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117529</link>
    <description>Refund of duty paid during a challenge to assessment was treated as payment under protest where the dispute concerned classification and customs law did not prescribe an equivalent protest procedure to Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal held that the refund could not be rejected solely as time-barred on that basis, because the protest character of the payment flowed from the pending assessment dispute itself. The assessee therefore succeeded on limitation and the refund was not barred by time.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:38:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 378 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117529</link>
      <description>Refund of duty paid during a challenge to assessment was treated as payment under protest where the dispute concerned classification and customs law did not prescribe an equivalent protest procedure to Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal held that the refund could not be rejected solely as time-barred on that basis, because the protest character of the payment flowed from the pending assessment dispute itself. The assessee therefore succeeded on limitation and the refund was not barred by time.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117529</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>