<?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>1985 (1) TMI 324 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167384</link>
    <description>Refund disputes concerning cess on exported oil were governed by the refund machinery and appellate framework of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 applied those provisions to produce cess matters so far as may be. Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act was confined to appeals against assessments under section 9 and did not extend to refund claims arising under section 6. A revision application already pending before the Central Government under the Central Excises and Salt Act was validly transferred to the Tribunal under section 35P(2), and the Tribunal had jurisdiction; the preliminary objection was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:48:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 324 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167384</link>
      <description>Refund disputes concerning cess on exported oil were governed by the refund machinery and appellate framework of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, because section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 applied those provisions to produce cess matters so far as may be. Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act was confined to appeals against assessments under section 9 and did not extend to refund claims arising under section 6. A revision application already pending before the Central Government under the Central Excises and Salt Act was validly transferred to the Tribunal under section 35P(2), and the Tribunal had jurisdiction; the preliminary objection was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>