<?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 (10) TMI 468 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118886</link>
    <description>The appeal against the rejection of a refund claim under the compounded levy scheme by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I, was dismissed. The rejection was based on the grounds that the claim was time-barred and not challenging an earlier order determining the Annual Production Capacity (APC). The court held that failing to appeal against an order precludes later questioning its correctness through a refund claim. The appellant&#039;s argument that the refund claim was filed before the issuance of the APC order was deemed untenable, emphasizing the need to challenge orders through proper statutory procedures rather than seeking redress through refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 14:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 468 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118886</link>
      <description>The appeal against the rejection of a refund claim under the compounded levy scheme by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I, was dismissed. The rejection was based on the grounds that the claim was time-barred and not challenging an earlier order determining the Annual Production Capacity (APC). The court held that failing to appeal against an order precludes later questioning its correctness through a refund claim. The appellant&#039;s argument that the refund claim was filed before the issuance of the APC order was deemed untenable, emphasizing the need to challenge orders through proper statutory procedures rather than seeking redress through refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118886</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>