<?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>1992 (2) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43186</link>
    <description>An arguable question of law arose on whether the Central Excise and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 applied to the refund claim and whether the refund amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The HC did not decide the merits of refund entitlement or statutory credit; it treated the application as an appeal and issued only an interim direction for partial refund against a bank guarantee, leaving the appeal for hearing in due course.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:13:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81715" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43186</link>
      <description>An arguable question of law arose on whether the Central Excise and Customs Laws (Amendment) Act, 1991 applied to the refund claim and whether the refund amount should be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The HC did not decide the merits of refund entitlement or statutory credit; it treated the application as an appeal and issued only an interim direction for partial refund against a bank guarantee, leaving the appeal for hearing in due course.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>