<?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>2017 (11) TMI 2065 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458940</link>
    <description>A refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules was examined for limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Where the application was first filed before an office lacking jurisdiction and then promptly re-presented before the proper authority after return, the limitation period was treated as running from the original presentation, together with the brief interval taken to refile. On that basis, the refund claim was held to be within time and not time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:15:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=778882" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 2065 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458940</link>
      <description>A refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules was examined for limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Where the application was first filed before an office lacking jurisdiction and then promptly re-presented before the proper authority after return, the limitation period was treated as running from the original presentation, together with the brief interval taken to refile. On that basis, the refund claim was held to be within time and not time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>