<?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>2021 (5) TMI 483 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407604</link>
    <description>The Tribunal referred the matter to a Larger Bench to determine if the one-year time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No.93/2008-Cus applies when the importer has not sold the goods within one year of payment of special additional duty (SAD). This decision was made due to conflicting views and the potential for double taxation, emphasizing the need for a resolution on this issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2021 08:27:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 483 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407604</link>
      <description>The Tribunal referred the matter to a Larger Bench to determine if the one-year time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No.93/2008-Cus applies when the importer has not sold the goods within one year of payment of special additional duty (SAD). This decision was made due to conflicting views and the potential for double taxation, emphasizing the need for a resolution on this issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>