<?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>1979 (5) TMI 145 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165631</link>
    <description>The Limitation Act applies to quasi-judicial excise refund proceedings unless expressly excluded, and a refund claim based on a mistake of law discovered through a Supreme Court ruling cannot be rejected solely as time-barred under Rule 11 without examining the applicable limitation basis. The lower authority had not considered the merits of the refund, the admissibility of the amounts, or whether the mistake could earlier have been discovered with due diligence, so those issues required fresh consideration. The limitation-based rejection was therefore not sustained, and the claims were remitted for reconsideration on admissibility and due diligence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2014 14:08:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=361281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (5) TMI 145 - APPELLATE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165631</link>
      <description>The Limitation Act applies to quasi-judicial excise refund proceedings unless expressly excluded, and a refund claim based on a mistake of law discovered through a Supreme Court ruling cannot be rejected solely as time-barred under Rule 11 without examining the applicable limitation basis. The lower authority had not considered the merits of the refund, the admissibility of the amounts, or whether the mistake could earlier have been discovered with due diligence, so those issues required fresh consideration. The limitation-based rejection was therefore not sustained, and the claims were remitted for reconsideration on admissibility and due diligence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>