<?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>2002 (4) TMI 59 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46206</link>
    <description>In refund claims under a taxing statute, writ jurisdiction must be exercised consistently with the statute&#039;s limitation period and scheme. A refund claim made beyond the permissible time limit under the excise law could not be sustained merely through writ proceedings, because the court must respect the statutory bar governing such refunds. The allowance of the refund was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:23:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 59 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46206</link>
      <description>In refund claims under a taxing statute, writ jurisdiction must be exercised consistently with the statute&#039;s limitation period and scheme. A refund claim made beyond the permissible time limit under the excise law could not be sustained merely through writ proceedings, because the court must respect the statutory bar governing such refunds. The allowance of the refund was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>