<?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>1987 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42220</link>
    <description>The Assistant Collector could not reject a refund claim on limitation after the Collector had already allowed the appeal and directed refund on the finding that the applications were within time. The later order under Rule 11 was inconsistent with the binding appellate determination and was therefore unsustainable. The rejection of refund was set aside and the refund was held payable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Jun 2010 18:25:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (6) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42220</link>
      <description>The Assistant Collector could not reject a refund claim on limitation after the Collector had already allowed the appeal and directed refund on the finding that the applications were within time. The later order under Rule 11 was inconsistent with the binding appellate determination and was therefore unsustainable. The rejection of refund was set aside and the refund was held payable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>