<?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 (3) TMI 209 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221443</link>
    <description>Rebate of excise duty on Aviation Turbine Fuel supplied as stores to aircraft operating to Nepal was treated as admissible despite restrictive notification wording, because longstanding administrative instructions and later supplementary instructions consistently extended the concession to Nepal-bound supplies. The revisional authority also followed the earlier revisional order in the assessee&#039;s own case and the Bombay High Court&#039;s direction to apply that settled departmental understanding. On that basis, the rebate claims were held admissible where otherwise in order, and the impugned orders were set aside with directions to sanction the claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:04:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 209 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221443</link>
      <description>Rebate of excise duty on Aviation Turbine Fuel supplied as stores to aircraft operating to Nepal was treated as admissible despite restrictive notification wording, because longstanding administrative instructions and later supplementary instructions consistently extended the concession to Nepal-bound supplies. The revisional authority also followed the earlier revisional order in the assessee&#039;s own case and the Bombay High Court&#039;s direction to apply that settled departmental understanding. On that basis, the rebate claims were held admissible where otherwise in order, and the impugned orders were set aside with directions to sanction the claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221443</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>