<?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 (12) TMI 321 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335676</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and instructing verification of claims within the limitation period based on the date of goods entering the SEZ. The appellant&#039;s request for refund due to unit closure was disallowed, emphasizing the need for proper verification and adherence to the limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 13:18:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450816" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 321 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335676</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order and instructing verification of claims within the limitation period based on the date of goods entering the SEZ. The appellant&#039;s request for refund due to unit closure was disallowed, emphasizing the need for proper verification and adherence to the limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>