<?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 (9) TMI 388 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119995</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for input-duty credit reversed by the appellant. The appellant&#039;s request for refund based on exporting the final product &quot;Halothane IP&quot; was deemed inadmissible as the product was exempt from duty. The tribunal clarified that the claim for rebate, not previously raised, was beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2012 11:21:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 388 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119995</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for input-duty credit reversed by the appellant. The appellant&#039;s request for refund based on exporting the final product &quot;Halothane IP&quot; was deemed inadmissible as the product was exempt from duty. The tribunal clarified that the claim for rebate, not previously raised, was beyond its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>