<?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 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349797</link>
    <description>Refund claims under Notification No. 49/2007-ST had to be filed quarterly within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter in which exports were made. Where the claim was filed after that prescribed period, the condition in clause 2(e) was not met and the refund was treated as time barred. Authorities distinguished the appellant&#039;s cited decisions on the basis that they did not concern the same filing limit for the relevant period, and the rejection of refund was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2018 16:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493476" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349797</link>
      <description>Refund claims under Notification No. 49/2007-ST had to be filed quarterly within 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter in which exports were made. Where the claim was filed after that prescribed period, the condition in clause 2(e) was not met and the refund was treated as time barred. Authorities distinguished the appellant&#039;s cited decisions on the basis that they did not concern the same filing limit for the relevant period, and the rejection of refund was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>