<?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>2005 (11) TMI 313 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116852</link>
    <description>Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is available only when goods originally cleared are returned for remaking, refining or reconditioning and are then cleared again as goods of the same class after the prescribed process. Where the returned components and the later cleared goods fell under different tariff headings, the required correlation between the returned goods, replacement and re-clearance was not established. Replacement made before receipt of the returned goods, without prior intimation to the range officer, also breached the statutory conditions. The refund claim therefore failed for non-fulfilment of mandatory Rule 173L requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:50:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153850" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 313 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116852</link>
      <description>Refund under Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is available only when goods originally cleared are returned for remaking, refining or reconditioning and are then cleared again as goods of the same class after the prescribed process. Where the returned components and the later cleared goods fell under different tariff headings, the required correlation between the returned goods, replacement and re-clearance was not established. Replacement made before receipt of the returned goods, without prior intimation to the range officer, also breached the statutory conditions. The refund claim therefore failed for non-fulfilment of mandatory Rule 173L requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116852</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>