<?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 (2) TMI 921 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210649</link>
    <description>The revision application by M/s. Jubilant Organosys Ltd. against the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore&#039;s order-in-appeal regarding rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was disposed of. The government found the applicant eligible for rebate under Rule 18 for finished goods exported, despite availing benefits under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. The judgment clarified that amendments to notifications have prospective application, making the applicant eligible for rebate only prospectively. Rebate was sanctioned for eligible cases post-amendment, resolving the complexities surrounding rebate eligibility, interpretation of notifications, and compliance with conditions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Feb 2012 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184082" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 921 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210649</link>
      <description>The revision application by M/s. Jubilant Organosys Ltd. against the Commissioner Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore&#039;s order-in-appeal regarding rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 was disposed of. The government found the applicant eligible for rebate under Rule 18 for finished goods exported, despite availing benefits under Notification No. 43/2002-Cus. The judgment clarified that amendments to notifications have prospective application, making the applicant eligible for rebate only prospectively. Rebate was sanctioned for eligible cases post-amendment, resolving the complexities surrounding rebate eligibility, interpretation of notifications, and compliance with conditions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=210649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>