<?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>2009 (7) TMI 1301 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188245</link>
    <description>Refund arising from a pre-deposit may be adjusted against earlier confirmed government dues where those dues were already sustained in prior adjudication and appeal. The plea that such adjustment was barred after a long lapse of time under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rejected because no legal time bar to recovery of the confirmed dues was shown. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on its facts, and the adjustment against the outstanding dues was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1301 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188245</link>
      <description>Refund arising from a pre-deposit may be adjusted against earlier confirmed government dues where those dues were already sustained in prior adjudication and appeal. The plea that such adjustment was barred after a long lapse of time under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was rejected because no legal time bar to recovery of the confirmed dues was shown. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on its facts, and the adjustment against the outstanding dues was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188245</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>