<?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 (1) TMI 1310 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189452</link>
    <description>Duty recovered while the assessee&#039;s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was pending was treated as payment under protest for refund purposes under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. On that basis, the limitation bar for filing the refund claim did not apply, and the claim was held not time-barred. The reasoning followed cited case law, with no accepted factual or legal distinction to deny the protest character of the payment. The refund was therefore rightly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 12:54:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 1310 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189452</link>
      <description>Duty recovered while the assessee&#039;s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was pending was treated as payment under protest for refund purposes under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. On that basis, the limitation bar for filing the refund claim did not apply, and the claim was held not time-barred. The reasoning followed cited case law, with no accepted factual or legal distinction to deny the protest character of the payment. The refund was therefore rightly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189452</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>