<?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>2003 (9) TMI 203 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52134</link>
    <description>A pre-deposit made before filing an appeal to contest a duty demand is treated as payment under protest, not as a voluntary duty payment. On that basis, refund of the amount is not barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not mandatory. The refund claim was therefore maintainable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:02:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90612" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 203 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52134</link>
      <description>A pre-deposit made before filing an appeal to contest a duty demand is treated as payment under protest, not as a voluntary duty payment. On that basis, refund of the amount is not barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and compliance with Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not mandatory. The refund claim was therefore maintainable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>