<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1328 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335310</link>
    <description>Refund under Notification No. 56/02-CE was held admissible where duty had been paid through PLA and the denial rested solely on Notification No. 19/08-CE. The assessee produced a High Court order showing that the operation of the latter notification had been modified, so the objection that the notification had not been separately challenged could not sustain rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal therefore accepted the refund entitlement and the assessee succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:58:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1328 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335310</link>
      <description>Refund under Notification No. 56/02-CE was held admissible where duty had been paid through PLA and the denial rested solely on Notification No. 19/08-CE. The assessee produced a High Court order showing that the operation of the latter notification had been modified, so the objection that the notification had not been separately challenged could not sustain rejection of the refund claim. The Tribunal therefore accepted the refund entitlement and the assessee succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>