<?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>2018 (4) TMI 783 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358672</link>
    <description>The limitation objection to a refund claim of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was rejected because the issue was already covered by binding jurisdictional High Court precedent in Sony India Pvt. Ltd., which had also been followed in an earlier Tribunal order. In the absence of any contrary higher-court ruling, the Tribunal held that the refund could not be denied on limitation and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 06:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 783 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358672</link>
      <description>The limitation objection to a refund claim of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was rejected because the issue was already covered by binding jurisdictional High Court precedent in Sony India Pvt. Ltd., which had also been followed in an earlier Tribunal order. In the absence of any contrary higher-court ruling, the Tribunal held that the refund could not be denied on limitation and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358672</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>