<?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>2004 (10) TMI 158 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53441</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of Rs. 7,85,536/- to the appellants. It held that the amount was paid under protest, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument of time-bar on the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment made during investigation was deemed to be under protest, not falling under the limitation period of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the department was directed to provide the consequential relief to the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:41:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91918" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 158 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53441</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the refund of Rs. 7,85,536/- to the appellants. It held that the amount was paid under protest, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument of time-bar on the refund claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the payment made during investigation was deemed to be under protest, not falling under the limitation period of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the department was directed to provide the consequential relief to the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>