<?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>2013 (1) TMI 383 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220278</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the Additional Commissioner had the jurisdiction to grant a refund of unutilized input credit under Section 12E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the absence of explicit mention in the order. The court overturned the decisions of the lower authorities, upholding the original refund order. All appeals were allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party, clarifying the authority of the Additional Commissioner to grant such refunds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 09:11:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193644" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 383 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220278</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the Additional Commissioner had the jurisdiction to grant a refund of unutilized input credit under Section 12E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, despite the absence of explicit mention in the order. The court overturned the decisions of the lower authorities, upholding the original refund order. All appeals were allowed, and no costs were imposed on either party, clarifying the authority of the Additional Commissioner to grant such refunds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>