<?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>2008 (5) TMI 221 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31700</link>
    <description>The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (A) due to being filed beyond the prescribed time. The claim for cash refund was initially rejected but later granted by the Tribunal, emphasizing the entitlement to refund in cash as per CBEC Circulars. The decision highlighted the importance of CBEC Circulars in interpreting the law, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief for the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 221 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31700</link>
      <description>The appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (A) due to being filed beyond the prescribed time. The claim for cash refund was initially rejected but later granted by the Tribunal, emphasizing the entitlement to refund in cash as per CBEC Circulars. The decision highlighted the importance of CBEC Circulars in interpreting the law, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief for the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>