<?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>2025 (12) TMI 1462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783922</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether the limitation period in unamended s.11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a rebate claim under r.18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Relying on SC authority holding that s.11B governs rebate claims and mandates filing within one year, the HC held the claimant&#039;s rebate application was admittedly beyond one year and was therefore time-barred. The rejection order was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1462 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783922</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether the limitation period in unamended s.11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a rebate claim under r.18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Relying on SC authority holding that s.11B governs rebate claims and mandates filing within one year, the HC held the claimant&#039;s rebate application was admittedly beyond one year and was therefore time-barred. The rejection order was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>