<?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>2018 (11) TMI 1977 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462025</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked for a show cause notice seeking recovery of duty drawback where the appellant had already deposited the drawback with interest after the departmental objection and had informed the Revenue of the deposit. On those admitted facts, the prerequisite for invoking the extended period was not established, so the Department&#039;s demand beyond the normal limitation failed and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 20:06:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822026" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1977 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462025</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked for a show cause notice seeking recovery of duty drawback where the appellant had already deposited the drawback with interest after the departmental objection and had informed the Revenue of the deposit. On those admitted facts, the prerequisite for invoking the extended period was not established, so the Department&#039;s demand beyond the normal limitation failed and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462025</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>