<?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>2011 (12) TMI 442 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246333</link>
    <description>Refund of excess duty cannot be refused solely because provisional assessment was not adopted, where the refund claim is filed within the statutory limitation period. The lower appellate authority&#039;s view that refund was available only if provisional assessment had been opted for was found unsustainable. As the claim was confined to duty paid in excess of what was due and was not time-barred, the refund remained maintainable. The refund sanctioned by the original authority was restored and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 442 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246333</link>
      <description>Refund of excess duty cannot be refused solely because provisional assessment was not adopted, where the refund claim is filed within the statutory limitation period. The lower appellate authority&#039;s view that refund was available only if provisional assessment had been opted for was found unsustainable. As the claim was confined to duty paid in excess of what was due and was not time-barred, the refund remained maintainable. The refund sanctioned by the original authority was restored and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>