<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1890 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295148</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the refund claim of additional duty of Customs must be filed within one year, in accordance with Notification No. 93/2008 and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have erred in favoring the assessee by providing an extended interpretation. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and allowed the department&#039;s appeal, rejecting the refund claim as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 May 2021 08:28:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1890 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295148</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the refund claim of additional duty of Customs must be filed within one year, in accordance with Notification No. 93/2008 and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have erred in favoring the assessee by providing an extended interpretation. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and allowed the department&#039;s appeal, rejecting the refund claim as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>