<?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>2000 (11) TMI 672 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97050</link>
    <description>Refund of central excise duty on pack sheets used in a 100% export oriented unit was treated as admissible despite non-compliance with Notification No. 123/81-C.E. procedure, because the procedural lapse arose from departmental cancellation of the CT-3 facility. The goods were actually used in the manufacture of exported products, and the assessee was recognised as a 100% EOU for the relevant period. In these circumstances, the substantive conditions for the exemption benefit were satisfied, and the Department&#039;s own conduct could not be used to defeat the refund claim. The impugned order was set aside and refund with consequential relief was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 17:35:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134108" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 672 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97050</link>
      <description>Refund of central excise duty on pack sheets used in a 100% export oriented unit was treated as admissible despite non-compliance with Notification No. 123/81-C.E. procedure, because the procedural lapse arose from departmental cancellation of the CT-3 facility. The goods were actually used in the manufacture of exported products, and the assessee was recognised as a 100% EOU for the relevant period. In these circumstances, the substantive conditions for the exemption benefit were satisfied, and the Department&#039;s own conduct could not be used to defeat the refund claim. The impugned order was set aside and refund with consequential relief was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>