<?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>2015 (2) TMI 550 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256550</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the refund claim was not time-barred as the first day was excluded when calculating the limitation period. Emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions and legal principles in determining time limits for refund claims, the Tribunal directed the refund to be granted, subject to verification of &#039;unjust enrichment&#039;, within one month from the order date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 11:03:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376128" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 550 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256550</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the refund claim was not time-barred as the first day was excluded when calculating the limitation period. Emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions and legal principles in determining time limits for refund claims, the Tribunal directed the refund to be granted, subject to verification of &#039;unjust enrichment&#039;, within one month from the order date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256550</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>