<?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>2006 (7) TMI 491 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119848</link>
    <description>Deemed Cenvat credit under Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Notifications No. 53/2001-C.E.(N.T.) and No. 6/2002-C.E.(N.T.) was treated as available for final products cleared to 100% EOUs or merchant exporters, not only for direct export under bond, and unutilised accumulated credit could be refunded where it could not be adjusted against duty. The restrictive Revenue view was found inconsistent with the language and object of the notifications, so recovery of utilised credit was set aside. The limitation objection to the refund claim was also rejected because it was not raised in the show cause notice and the deemed-credit refund was not treated as time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 13:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156844" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 491 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119848</link>
      <description>Deemed Cenvat credit under Rule 11 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and Notifications No. 53/2001-C.E.(N.T.) and No. 6/2002-C.E.(N.T.) was treated as available for final products cleared to 100% EOUs or merchant exporters, not only for direct export under bond, and unutilised accumulated credit could be refunded where it could not be adjusted against duty. The restrictive Revenue view was found inconsistent with the language and object of the notifications, so recovery of utilised credit was set aside. The limitation objection to the refund claim was also rejected because it was not raised in the show cause notice and the deemed-credit refund was not treated as time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>