<?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>2022 (6) TMI 1139 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424298</link>
    <description>A refund claim for Special Additional Duty filed within the prescribed one-year period before the wrong customs refund forum is not time-barred merely because it was later transferred to the correct authority after limitation expired. The date of original filing governs computation of limitation, so rejection solely on the ground of delay was unsustainable. The time-bar objection was rejected, the refund denial was set aside, and the matter was remanded for processing on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:24:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=683215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (6) TMI 1139 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424298</link>
      <description>A refund claim for Special Additional Duty filed within the prescribed one-year period before the wrong customs refund forum is not time-barred merely because it was later transferred to the correct authority after limitation expired. The date of original filing governs computation of limitation, so rejection solely on the ground of delay was unsustainable. The time-bar objection was rejected, the refund denial was set aside, and the matter was remanded for processing on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>