<?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 (10) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51697</link>
    <description>A refund due to one assessee could not be appropriated against an outstanding duty demand raised against a different and independent legal entity. The refund belonged to the respondent company, while the demand related to another company, so cross-adjustment was impermissible in law. That impropriety was reinforced by the fact that recovery of the other demand had already been stayed by the High Court. The adjustment was therefore illegal, and the order setting it aside was sustained, with the Revenue&#039;s challenge failing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:47:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 182 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51697</link>
      <description>A refund due to one assessee could not be appropriated against an outstanding duty demand raised against a different and independent legal entity. The refund belonged to the respondent company, while the demand related to another company, so cross-adjustment was impermissible in law. That impropriety was reinforced by the fact that recovery of the other demand had already been stayed by the High Court. The adjustment was therefore illegal, and the order setting it aside was sustained, with the Revenue&#039;s challenge failing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>