<?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>2003 (3) TMI 477 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107492</link>
    <description>Post-export verification can support retrospective Rule 13 benefit where the goods are established to have been exported outside India, including cases where the Commissioner (Appeals) remands the matter to the jurisdictional officer for that factual check. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s challenge to such a remand and accepted that post facto grant of the export benefit was permissible if export was proved in order. The Revenue&#039;s objections that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the original dispute and that captive consumption benefit under Notification No. 67/95 was unavailable were not accepted on the record before the Tribunal, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:29:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144509" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 477 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107492</link>
      <description>Post-export verification can support retrospective Rule 13 benefit where the goods are established to have been exported outside India, including cases where the Commissioner (Appeals) remands the matter to the jurisdictional officer for that factual check. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s challenge to such a remand and accepted that post facto grant of the export benefit was permissible if export was proved in order. The Revenue&#039;s objections that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the original dispute and that captive consumption benefit under Notification No. 67/95 was unavailable were not accepted on the record before the Tribunal, and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>