<?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>1993 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82573</link>
    <description>Cash refund of input duty under the credit scheme was not admissible where the assessee had not itself paid the duty and the burden had been borne by another manufacturer. The governing Rule 56A also barred refund of credit in cash or by cheque, so non-compliance was not a mere procedural defect but a substantive prohibition. The order allowing refund was therefore set aside, while the question of proforma credit was remitted for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 11:00:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=119718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (3) TMI 224 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82573</link>
      <description>Cash refund of input duty under the credit scheme was not admissible where the assessee had not itself paid the duty and the burden had been borne by another manufacturer. The governing Rule 56A also barred refund of credit in cash or by cheque, so non-compliance was not a mere procedural defect but a substantive prohibition. The order allowing refund was therefore set aside, while the question of proforma credit was remitted for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>