<?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 (12) TMI 503 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401704</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the impugned order, ruling that the respondent is entitled to a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) as the right to claim refund accrues upon the sale of goods, not at the time of duty payment. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court&#039;s interpretation that the limitation period for refunds cannot start before the sale event, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument based on conflicting High Court judgments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:35:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=630234" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 503 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401704</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upheld the impugned order, ruling that the respondent is entitled to a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) as the right to claim refund accrues upon the sale of goods, not at the time of duty payment. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court&#039;s interpretation that the limitation period for refunds cannot start before the sale event, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument based on conflicting High Court judgments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>