<?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>2020 (3) TMI 852 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393708</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for refund claims, emphasizing that authorities lack jurisdiction to process refunds beyond these limits. Consequently, other issues such as the provision of documentary evidence and unjust enrichment were deemed irrelevant. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2020 11:43:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (3) TMI 852 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393708</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the refund claim was time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for refund claims, emphasizing that authorities lack jurisdiction to process refunds beyond these limits. Consequently, other issues such as the provision of documentary evidence and unjust enrichment were deemed irrelevant. The appeal was dismissed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>