<?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>2011 (1) TMI 350 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204308</link>
    <description>Refund under the excise refund/rebate framework was unavailable for defective imported equipment returned abroad where Modvat credit taken on import had not been reversed and the statutory conditions for refund under Rule 173L were not met. The rule was inapplicable because the returned goods were not excisable goods manufactured by the claimant, and the payment made at export did not create a second duty incidence justifying refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 17:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177848" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 350 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204308</link>
      <description>Refund under the excise refund/rebate framework was unavailable for defective imported equipment returned abroad where Modvat credit taken on import had not been reversed and the statutory conditions for refund under Rule 173L were not met. The rule was inapplicable because the returned goods were not excisable goods manufactured by the claimant, and the payment made at export did not create a second duty incidence justifying refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204308</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>