<?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>2010 (3) TMI 983 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154284</link>
    <description>The government held that no rebate is admissible for duty paid on non-manufactured, bought-out items like &#039;Rubber Seal Kit&#039; and &#039;Brush Spring.&#039; The revision application succeeded, emphasizing that only duties on manufactured goods are eligible for rebates under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original orders denying rebate claims were restored, emphasizing the substantive legal requirement over procedural acceptance of duty payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:25:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 983 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154284</link>
      <description>The government held that no rebate is admissible for duty paid on non-manufactured, bought-out items like &#039;Rubber Seal Kit&#039; and &#039;Brush Spring.&#039; The revision application succeeded, emphasizing that only duties on manufactured goods are eligible for rebates under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original orders denying rebate claims were restored, emphasizing the substantive legal requirement over procedural acceptance of duty payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>