<?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>2009 (3) TMI 721 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125896</link>
    <description>The appellate authority upheld a duty demand against the appellants for January to June 2005 due to erroneous refunds of Cenvat credit on furnace oil used in manufacturing. Refunds were claimed for goods not yet exported, leading to recovery demand. Refunds can only be claimed for goods cleared for export, not pending clearance. The claimant failed to establish a case, leading to a directive for depositing demanded amounts. Show-cause notices for excess refunds were adjudicated against the claimant. Stay applications were considered, with appeals deferred for later review. Compliance with deposit directives was required for further proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 13:26:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (3) TMI 721 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125896</link>
      <description>The appellate authority upheld a duty demand against the appellants for January to June 2005 due to erroneous refunds of Cenvat credit on furnace oil used in manufacturing. Refunds were claimed for goods not yet exported, leading to recovery demand. Refunds can only be claimed for goods cleared for export, not pending clearance. The claimant failed to establish a case, leading to a directive for depositing demanded amounts. Show-cause notices for excess refunds were adjudicated against the claimant. Stay applications were considered, with appeals deferred for later review. Compliance with deposit directives was required for further proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125896</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>