<?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 (7) TMI 1780 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364472</link>
    <description>A recorded error in the date of receipt of the refund/self-credit intimation was treated as a mistake apparent on the record. The earlier order had noted the filing date as 16.07.2015, but the material showed receipt in the Division on 07.07.2015. Once the correct date was taken into account, the finding of delay in filing the statement of availing self-credit could not survive. The factual mistake was therefore rectifiable, and the rectification application was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:43:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=528764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 1780 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364472</link>
      <description>A recorded error in the date of receipt of the refund/self-credit intimation was treated as a mistake apparent on the record. The earlier order had noted the filing date as 16.07.2015, but the material showed receipt in the Division on 07.07.2015. Once the correct date was taken into account, the finding of delay in filing the statement of availing self-credit could not survive. The factual mistake was therefore rectifiable, and the rectification application was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>