<?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 (3) TMI 1694 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274617</link>
    <description>Delay in filing supporting refund documents beyond the time permitted by an exemption notification was held not condonable where the claim was intimated in time but the documents were filed 104 days late. The explanation for the delay was found unsupported by medical evidence or any satisfactory material, and the Tribunal followed its earlier view that the statutory limit in the notification cannot be extended on such facts. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2018 09:26:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1694 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274617</link>
      <description>Delay in filing supporting refund documents beyond the time permitted by an exemption notification was held not condonable where the claim was intimated in time but the documents were filed 104 days late. The explanation for the delay was found unsupported by medical evidence or any satisfactory material, and the Tribunal followed its earlier view that the statutory limit in the notification cannot be extended on such facts. The appeal therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274617</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>