<?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 (12) TMI 132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389249</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the Department&#039;s appeal, emphasizing compliance with the one-year time limit for refund applications post-amendment to the exemption notification. The decision clarified that the time limit applied to imports made after the relevant notification amendment. The judgment underscored the need for importers to adhere to prescribed timelines for seeking refunds on duty payments to avoid dismissal on grounds of being time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2019 15:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=596193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 132 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389249</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the Department&#039;s appeal, emphasizing compliance with the one-year time limit for refund applications post-amendment to the exemption notification. The decision clarified that the time limit applied to imports made after the relevant notification amendment. The judgment underscored the need for importers to adhere to prescribed timelines for seeking refunds on duty payments to avoid dismissal on grounds of being time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389249</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>