<?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>Refund Claim Dismissed for Late Filing Beyond One-Year Limit Under Central Excise Act; Tribunal Upholds Decision.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77111</link>
    <description>Refund claim - Reduction in price subsequently resulting in payment of duty in excess - Can refund be claimed without opting of provisional assessment? - Time limitation - Despite clear evidence of overpayment, the refund claim was dismissed solely on the grounds of time bar, as it was filed beyond the one-year limit prescribed by Section 11B of the CEA. The tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and rejected the appellant&#039;s argument that the use of &quot;may&quot; in Section 11B implied discretionary filing within the one-year timeframe. Without precedent supporting the appellant&#039;s stance, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, affirming the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2024 07:59:30 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2024 07:59:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Refund Claim Dismissed for Late Filing Beyond One-Year Limit Under Central Excise Act; Tribunal Upholds Decision.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77111</link>
      <description>Refund claim - Reduction in price subsequently resulting in payment of duty in excess - Can refund be claimed without opting of provisional assessment? - Time limitation - Despite clear evidence of overpayment, the refund claim was dismissed solely on the grounds of time bar, as it was filed beyond the one-year limit prescribed by Section 11B of the CEA. The tribunal analyzed the statutory provisions and rejected the appellant&#039;s argument that the use of &quot;may&quot; in Section 11B implied discretionary filing within the one-year timeframe. Without precedent supporting the appellant&#039;s stance, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, affirming the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 04 May 2024 07:59:30 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>