<?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 (11) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239313</link>
    <description>Refund claims filed with the required statements under Notification No. 56/2002-CE were verified by jurisdictional officers, and refund orders were issued. Because those refund orders were not challenged by the Revenue and had attained finality, the text states that invoking the extended period for issuing the show cause notice was not in accordance with law. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred and the stay petition was allowed unconditionally.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=335193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239313</link>
      <description>Refund claims filed with the required statements under Notification No. 56/2002-CE were verified by jurisdictional officers, and refund orders were issued. Because those refund orders were not challenged by the Revenue and had attained finality, the text states that invoking the extended period for issuing the show cause notice was not in accordance with law. On that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred and the stay petition was allowed unconditionally.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>