<?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 (8) TMI 333 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364861</link>
    <description>For an assessee seeking a statutory refund remedy under the Customs Act, limitation was treated as running from the date the order was communicated or otherwise made known, because effective knowledge of the order is necessary to pursue the remedy. The date of mere pronouncement or signing was held not to be the operative date for reckoning limitation. Applying that principle, the rejection of the refund claim on limitation was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=529703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 333 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364861</link>
      <description>For an assessee seeking a statutory refund remedy under the Customs Act, limitation was treated as running from the date the order was communicated or otherwise made known, because effective knowledge of the order is necessary to pursue the remedy. The date of mere pronouncement or signing was held not to be the operative date for reckoning limitation. Applying that principle, the rejection of the refund claim on limitation was set aside and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364861</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>