<?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>2007 (4) TMI 474 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121577</link>
    <description>Recovery of a refund already sanctioned was held unsustainable where the original refund order had not been reviewed or otherwise challenged. The demand was raised under Section 11A on the basis that the refund was erroneous, but the sanctioning order remained in force and unassailed. The absence of review of the refund order was treated as a fatal defect in the recovery action, so the attempted recovery could not stand and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=158571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 474 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121577</link>
      <description>Recovery of a refund already sanctioned was held unsustainable where the original refund order had not been reviewed or otherwise challenged. The demand was raised under Section 11A on the basis that the refund was erroneous, but the sanctioning order remained in force and unassailed. The absence of review of the refund order was treated as a fatal defect in the recovery action, so the attempted recovery could not stand and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121577</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>