<?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>2010 (4) TMI 638 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201662</link>
    <description>Where the original refund or rebate claim was filed within time and the Department had sanctioned only part of the admissible benefit in cash, a supplementary claim for the balance could not be treated as time barred merely because it was filed later on departmental advice. The assessee was therefore entitled to have the remaining amount, if otherwise due, sanctioned by credit in the Cenvat account.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:17:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 638 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201662</link>
      <description>Where the original refund or rebate claim was filed within time and the Department had sanctioned only part of the admissible benefit in cash, a supplementary claim for the balance could not be treated as time barred merely because it was filed later on departmental advice. The assessee was therefore entitled to have the remaining amount, if otherwise due, sanctioned by credit in the Cenvat account.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201662</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>