<?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 (11) TMI 186 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52423</link>
    <description>A one-day delay in filing the D3 intimation was condonable because the goods had been received back, reprocessed, and cleared again on payment of duty, the relevant records remained available for verification, and the delay was later explained. As the applicable rules permitted condonation of delay up to 10 days, the refund claim was allowed after condoning the delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:11:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90900" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (11) TMI 186 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52423</link>
      <description>A one-day delay in filing the D3 intimation was condonable because the goods had been received back, reprocessed, and cleared again on payment of duty, the relevant records remained available for verification, and the delay was later explained. As the applicable rules permitted condonation of delay up to 10 days, the refund claim was allowed after condoning the delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>