<?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>2013 (5) TMI 171 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233586</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for a refund of excise duty, ruling that the limitation period did not apply in the case of excess duty paid erroneously, as it cannot be treated as duty. The Tribunal held that there is no bar to return such amounts paid mistakenly, citing a previous case and deeming Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as inapplicable. Consequently, the appellant was granted consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 171 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233586</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for a refund of excise duty, ruling that the limitation period did not apply in the case of excess duty paid erroneously, as it cannot be treated as duty. The Tribunal held that there is no bar to return such amounts paid mistakenly, citing a previous case and deeming Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as inapplicable. Consequently, the appellant was granted consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>