<?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>2008 (7) TMI 659 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124013</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as time-barred. The appellants&#039; argument to be considered a Government organization eligible for an extended time limit under Section 27(1)(a) was dismissed due to the organization&#039;s shareholding structure not qualifying it as a Government of India Organization. Additionally, the plea to consider the claim under different sections of the Customs Act was rejected as it was raised for the first time at the Tribunal stage. The decision was based on the inadmissibility of the alternate plea and the appellants&#039; failure to meet the criteria as a Government organization.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:13:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 659 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124013</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as time-barred. The appellants&#039; argument to be considered a Government organization eligible for an extended time limit under Section 27(1)(a) was dismissed due to the organization&#039;s shareholding structure not qualifying it as a Government of India Organization. Additionally, the plea to consider the claim under different sections of the Customs Act was rejected as it was raised for the first time at the Tribunal stage. The decision was based on the inadmissibility of the alternate plea and the appellants&#039; failure to meet the criteria as a Government organization.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>