<?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 (4) TMI 649 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124714</link>
    <description>Rule 173L refund for returned goods required the goods to be received back in the factory within one year of original clearance, and any delay had to be condoned by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Where the assessee did not seek or obtain such condonation, the refund claim was not maintainable. On those facts, the appellate authority&#039;s rejection of the claim was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:21:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (4) TMI 649 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124714</link>
      <description>Rule 173L refund for returned goods required the goods to be received back in the factory within one year of original clearance, and any delay had to be condoned by the Commissioner of Central Excise. Where the assessee did not seek or obtain such condonation, the refund claim was not maintainable. On those facts, the appellate authority&#039;s rejection of the claim was upheld and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124714</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>