<?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>1998 (12) TMI 95 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49197</link>
    <description>The Revision Applications filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I against Order-in-Appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 were rejected. The rejection of rebate claims due to time limitation was upheld, with the Commissioner&#039;s challenges being dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Despite arguments raised regarding errors in granting condonation and discrepancies in documents, the Government supported the proper procedures followed during export activities. Ultimately, after thorough consideration, the Government found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) orders and decided not to intervene, resulting in the rejection of the Revision Applications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:56:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 95 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49197</link>
      <description>The Revision Applications filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I against Order-in-Appeal under the Central Excise Act, 1944 were rejected. The rejection of rebate claims due to time limitation was upheld, with the Commissioner&#039;s challenges being dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Despite arguments raised regarding errors in granting condonation and discrepancies in documents, the Government supported the proper procedures followed during export activities. Ultimately, after thorough consideration, the Government found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) orders and decided not to intervene, resulting in the rejection of the Revision Applications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>