<?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 (11) TMI 1095 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268286</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision to reject a refund claim, ruling that the penalty adjustment against a rebate constituted a pre-deposit. The Tribunal held that the time limitation under Section 11B did not apply to penalty refunds, as clarified in a previous case. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:21:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (11) TMI 1095 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268286</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s decision to reject a refund claim, ruling that the penalty adjustment against a rebate constituted a pre-deposit. The Tribunal held that the time limitation under Section 11B did not apply to penalty refunds, as clarified in a previous case. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants were granted consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>