<?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>2005 (12) TMI 443 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118116</link>
    <description>Refund of duty paid before a show cause notice was treated as an independent refund claim under Section 11B, not as a consequential refund arising automatically from the earlier Tribunal order. Because the duty had been deposited voluntarily and the assessee had not complied with the protest procedure under Rule 233B, the six-month limitation under Section 11B applied. The refund claim was therefore held to be time-barred and not maintainable as a consequential refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:49:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155113" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 443 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118116</link>
      <description>Refund of duty paid before a show cause notice was treated as an independent refund claim under Section 11B, not as a consequential refund arising automatically from the earlier Tribunal order. Because the duty had been deposited voluntarily and the assessee had not complied with the protest procedure under Rule 233B, the six-month limitation under Section 11B applied. The refund claim was therefore held to be time-barred and not maintainable as a consequential refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118116</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>