<?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 65 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46230</link>
    <description>Refunds arising from finalisation of excise assessment under Rule 9B are treated as consequential adjustments and not ordinary refund claims. The amended refund machinery in Section 11B, as explained in Mafatlal Industries, does not control such repayments, and the bar under Sections 11A and 11B does not apply to amounts refundable on final assessment. The assessee&#039;s claim for repayment of duty paid under protest was therefore maintainable, and the duty was refundable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Dec 2025 15:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=84756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 65 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46230</link>
      <description>Refunds arising from finalisation of excise assessment under Rule 9B are treated as consequential adjustments and not ordinary refund claims. The amended refund machinery in Section 11B, as explained in Mafatlal Industries, does not control such repayments, and the bar under Sections 11A and 11B does not apply to amounts refundable on final assessment. The assessee&#039;s claim for repayment of duty paid under protest was therefore maintainable, and the duty was refundable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46230</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>