<?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>2010 (5) TMI 214 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77265</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim for duty paid on bought out DC sets exported with submersible pumps. The appellant&#039;s argument that the DC sets should be considered part of the pumps under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was rejected. The Tribunal noted the appellant&#039;s status as a buyer, not a manufacturer, and highlighted procedural non-compliance in export formalities. It concluded that the DC sets were distinct from the pumps and not eligible for refund, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) due to jurisdictional constraints. The appeal was rejected, and the denial of the refund claim was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 214 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77265</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the denial of the refund claim for duty paid on bought out DC sets exported with submersible pumps. The appellant&#039;s argument that the DC sets should be considered part of the pumps under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was rejected. The Tribunal noted the appellant&#039;s status as a buyer, not a manufacturer, and highlighted procedural non-compliance in export formalities. It concluded that the DC sets were distinct from the pumps and not eligible for refund, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) due to jurisdictional constraints. The appeal was rejected, and the denial of the refund claim was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77265</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>