<?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>1982 (4) TMI 281 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165863</link>
    <description>For refund claims under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the applicable limitation period is the one in force on the date the duty was paid, not a later amended period. The claim was rejected only as time-barred on the basis of a six-month limit, but the deciding authority accepted that the earlier rule governed computation of limitation. As the claim was filed within one year of payment, it was not barred by limitation and had to be examined on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Aug 2014 18:46:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=362961" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (4) TMI 281 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165863</link>
      <description>For refund claims under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the applicable limitation period is the one in force on the date the duty was paid, not a later amended period. The claim was rejected only as time-barred on the basis of a six-month limit, but the deciding authority accepted that the earlier rule governed computation of limitation. As the claim was filed within one year of payment, it was not barred by limitation and had to be examined on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Apr 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>