<?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 891 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341921</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, disallowing the refund of the confirmed demand amount but allowing re-credit for the remaining sum. It clarified that the reversal under Rule 6(3) is not subject to the time limitation under Section 11B as it does not pertain to excise duty. The decision was made on 20/03/2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2018 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466383" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 891 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341921</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, disallowing the refund of the confirmed demand amount but allowing re-credit for the remaining sum. It clarified that the reversal under Rule 6(3) is not subject to the time limitation under Section 11B as it does not pertain to excise duty. The decision was made on 20/03/2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>