<?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 (11) TMI 406 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201338</link>
    <description>Refund claims under the Central Excise Act are governed by Section 11B and must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, even where the assessee characterises the payment as a deposit made during investigation. The claim in this matter was filed more than one year after payment, so the limitation bar applied and the refund was correctly rejected. The order sustaining rejection on limitation was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174952" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 406 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201338</link>
      <description>Refund claims under the Central Excise Act are governed by Section 11B and must be filed within the prescribed limitation period, even where the assessee characterises the payment as a deposit made during investigation. The claim in this matter was filed more than one year after payment, so the limitation bar applied and the refund was correctly rejected. The order sustaining rejection on limitation was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201338</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>