<?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 (11) TMI 1482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351603</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite arguments against the applicability of the time limit, the Tribunal emphasized the strict adherence to statutory provisions and cited Supreme Court judgments supporting the one-year time limit for filing refund claims. The appeal was dismissed, aligning with established legal principles and higher court decisions on the matter.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2017 11:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351603</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim based on limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Despite arguments against the applicability of the time limit, the Tribunal emphasized the strict adherence to statutory provisions and cited Supreme Court judgments supporting the one-year time limit for filing refund claims. The appeal was dismissed, aligning with established legal principles and higher court decisions on the matter.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351603</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>