<?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 (7) TMI 630 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235472</link>
    <description>Refund claims under the service tax regime are governed by the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. A claim filed after expiry of the statutory period is not maintainable, and payment made under mistake of law does not displace or extend that limitation. The refund machinery under the Act remains binding on departmental authorities, so a time-barred refund claim is liable to be rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 630 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235472</link>
      <description>Refund claims under the service tax regime are governed by the one-year limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, applied through Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. A claim filed after expiry of the statutory period is not maintainable, and payment made under mistake of law does not displace or extend that limitation. The refund machinery under the Act remains binding on departmental authorities, so a time-barred refund claim is liable to be rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>