<?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 (10) TMI 557 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125952</link>
    <description>A refund claim cannot be rejected as not maintainable merely because the assessment order was not separately challenged where the adjudicating authority had already entertained and decided the refund on merits and the Revenue did not appeal that order. In those circumstances, the admissibility of the refund had attained finality, and the appellate authority could not deny relief solely on the ground of absence of an independent challenge to assessment. The proper course was a merits-based reconsideration by the adjudicating authority after giving the importer a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The rejection on non-maintainability was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:28:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162858" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 557 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125952</link>
      <description>A refund claim cannot be rejected as not maintainable merely because the assessment order was not separately challenged where the adjudicating authority had already entertained and decided the refund on merits and the Revenue did not appeal that order. In those circumstances, the admissibility of the refund had attained finality, and the appellate authority could not deny relief solely on the ground of absence of an independent challenge to assessment. The proper course was a merits-based reconsideration by the adjudicating authority after giving the importer a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The rejection on non-maintainability was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>