Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2005 (4) TMI 424

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i V. Valte, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this appeal the issue relates to the denial of refund claim to the appellants. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund claim on the question of limitation by holding it to be time-barred. 2.I have heard both the sides. Ld. Counsel has contended that since the duty was paid under protest as the classification of the goods manufa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty earlier paid by them. They were, therefore, required to file the refund claim within the stipulated period of six months from the date of the order of the Apex Court. But they filed refund claim only on 15-6-99 and as such the same had been rightly held to be time-barred. The ratio of law laid down in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Kaushal Steel Rolling Mills (supra) is not attracted to the....