<?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>2026 (10) TMI 1497 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801554</link>
    <description>Refund claims under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 had to be filed within six months from presidential assent to the Finance Bill. As assent was received on 14 May 2016, the filing period expired on 14 November 2016. The six-month limitation was treated as mandatory, and a claim filed on 14 February 2017 was time-barred and liable to rejection. A contrary High Court view was not followed because it had not considered the applicable Supreme Court decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2026 08:37:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=931343" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (10) TMI 1497 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801554</link>
      <description>Refund claims under Section 102 of the Finance Act, 2016 had to be filed within six months from presidential assent to the Finance Bill. As assent was received on 14 May 2016, the filing period expired on 14 November 2016. The six-month limitation was treated as mandatory, and a claim filed on 14 February 2017 was time-barred and liable to rejection. A contrary High Court view was not followed because it had not considered the applicable Supreme Court decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=801554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>