<?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 (12) TMI 759 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153593</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was held admissible where final products were exported on payment of basic excise duty, and the input credit arose from additional excise duty under the textile levy that could not be utilised against the exported goods because that duty was not leviable on them. The earlier decision accepted by the lower appellate authority, and subsequently affirmed in later Tribunal and High Court proceedings, was treated as governing the issue. The contrary Departmental precedent was distinguished because it concerned a different factual situation involving simultaneous rebate claims. The refund claim was therefore allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:20:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170628" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 759 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153593</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was held admissible where final products were exported on payment of basic excise duty, and the input credit arose from additional excise duty under the textile levy that could not be utilised against the exported goods because that duty was not leviable on them. The earlier decision accepted by the lower appellate authority, and subsequently affirmed in later Tribunal and High Court proceedings, was treated as governing the issue. The contrary Departmental precedent was distinguished because it concerned a different factual situation involving simultaneous rebate claims. The refund claim was therefore allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153593</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>