<?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 (11) TMI 204 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51723</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for additional credit was not time-barred as the application was made before the introduction of a six-month time limit. The Tribunal held that without a specific statutory provision on limitation periods at the time of the application, the rejection based on delay was erroneous. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant the entitlement to the differential credit for unwrought copper alloys.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:03:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90201" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 204 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51723</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s claim for additional credit was not time-barred as the application was made before the introduction of a six-month time limit. The Tribunal held that without a specific statutory provision on limitation periods at the time of the application, the rejection based on delay was erroneous. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant the entitlement to the differential credit for unwrought copper alloys.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>