<?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>2014 (11) TMI 737 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253420</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision for the refund of duty amount, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal determined that the limitation period for filing a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 should commence from the audit date of Bills of Entry, supporting the respondent&#039;s entitlement to the refund based on previous legal interpretations and procedural guidelines. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the refund order in favor of the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 737 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253420</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision for the refund of duty amount, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal. The Tribunal determined that the limitation period for filing a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 should commence from the audit date of Bills of Entry, supporting the respondent&#039;s entitlement to the refund based on previous legal interpretations and procedural guidelines. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the refund order in favor of the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>