<?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>2019 (4) TMI 84 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377640</link>
    <description>Refunds of amounts paid voluntarily during investigation without protest are governed by the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, even where the proceedings were treated as concluded under Section 11AC. On that basis, a refund claim filed beyond one year was held time-barred and the rejection was sustained. Where a second refund claim was filed within time but rejected without examining the merits, including the correct classification of the product, the matter required fresh adjudication by the Original Authority. The result was that one refund claim remained rejected as barred by limitation, while the other was remanded for decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:26:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565145" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 84 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377640</link>
      <description>Refunds of amounts paid voluntarily during investigation without protest are governed by the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, even where the proceedings were treated as concluded under Section 11AC. On that basis, a refund claim filed beyond one year was held time-barred and the rejection was sustained. Where a second refund claim was filed within time but rejected without examining the merits, including the correct classification of the product, the matter required fresh adjudication by the Original Authority. The result was that one refund claim remained rejected as barred by limitation, while the other was remanded for decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>