<?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>1983 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166757</link>
    <description>An exemption notification allowing clear ascertainment of entitlement during the financial year does not defer the accrual of the refund claim until year-end. Where the assessee can identify excess clearances and claim the benefit immediately under the self-removal procedure, the specific limitation rule in Rule 11 applies from the dates of payment of duty. The reasoning used for end-of-year computation in small-scale exemption cases was held inapplicable because the notification itself provided a definite method for determining the base period and base clearances. The refund claim was therefore time-barred and the departmental rejection was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:58:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (12) TMI 282 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166757</link>
      <description>An exemption notification allowing clear ascertainment of entitlement during the financial year does not defer the accrual of the refund claim until year-end. Where the assessee can identify excess clearances and claim the benefit immediately under the self-removal procedure, the specific limitation rule in Rule 11 applies from the dates of payment of duty. The reasoning used for end-of-year computation in small-scale exemption cases was held inapplicable because the notification itself provided a definite method for determining the base period and base clearances. The refund claim was therefore time-barred and the departmental rejection was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>