<?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 (10) TMI 1572 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369606</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the refund claim for the additional duty of Customs, as exempted under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, must be filed within one year in accordance with Notification No. 93/2008-Cus and Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in providing an expanded interpretation of the limitation period, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and rejected the refund claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1572 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369606</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the refund claim for the additional duty of Customs, as exempted under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, must be filed within one year in accordance with Notification No. 93/2008-Cus and Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) erred in providing an expanded interpretation of the limitation period, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and rejected the refund claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>