<?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 (4) TMI 243 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394336</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed as the time limitation for filing the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was deemed applicable. Judicial precedents emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for refund claims, regardless of the reason for the overpayment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the claim due to the delay in filing beyond the prescribed period, in line with established legal principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2020 12:10:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=609691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (4) TMI 243 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394336</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed as the time limitation for filing the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was deemed applicable. Judicial precedents emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for refund claims, regardless of the reason for the overpayment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the claim due to the delay in filing beyond the prescribed period, in line with established legal principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394336</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>