<?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>2002 (9) TMI 857 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184097</link>
    <description>Where credit already stood available and re-credit followed consequential relief granted in appeal, a formal refund claim was not required; a simple request by letter was sufficient. The text further states that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply because the matter did not involve non-payment or short-payment of duty. On that basis, the order permitting re-credit was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2016 14:15:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433202" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 857 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184097</link>
      <description>Where credit already stood available and re-credit followed consequential relief granted in appeal, a formal refund claim was not required; a simple request by letter was sufficient. The text further states that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply because the matter did not involve non-payment or short-payment of duty. On that basis, the order permitting re-credit was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>