<?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>1980 (9) TMI 91 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40882</link>
    <description>The Government rejected all four revision applications, concluding that the L.P. Biscuit Material was a PVC-PVA copolymer and correctly classified under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. Consequently, the refund claims were time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply. The period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, was also deemed irrelevant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 May 2010 15:20:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=79413" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (9) TMI 91 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40882</link>
      <description>The Government rejected all four revision applications, concluding that the L.P. Biscuit Material was a PVC-PVA copolymer and correctly classified under Item 15A(1)(ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. Consequently, the refund claims were time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel did not apply. The period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, was also deemed irrelevant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>