<?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>2017 (4) TMI 884 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341914</link>
    <description>Excess payment made pursuant to an audit objection was treated as a revenue deposit because the amount was later found to exceed the actual liability worked out by the department. On that characterisation, the refund claim was not governed by the ordinary limitation period applicable to duty refunds. The text states that the refund was therefore not time-barred and that the assessee was entitled to refund of the excess amount with interest as directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 884 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341914</link>
      <description>Excess payment made pursuant to an audit objection was treated as a revenue deposit because the amount was later found to exceed the actual liability worked out by the department. On that characterisation, the refund claim was not governed by the ordinary limitation period applicable to duty refunds. The text states that the refund was therefore not time-barred and that the assessee was entitled to refund of the excess amount with interest as directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>