<?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 (4) TMI 502 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=230266</link>
    <description>Refund of deemed credit under Notification No. 29/1996-C.E. (N.T.) is confined to credit that remains unutilised. Where the bond documents and deemed credit register showed that part of the credit had already been used as deemed credit and only the balance was debited for export, refund of the same utilised amount was not permissible. The original authority&#039;s rejection of the claim was therefore consistent with the notification, and the later appellate reasoning did not change the underlying factual position that the credit was not wholly unutilised. The refund claim was accordingly not sustainable to the extent the credit had already been utilised.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=195654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (4) TMI 502 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=230266</link>
      <description>Refund of deemed credit under Notification No. 29/1996-C.E. (N.T.) is confined to credit that remains unutilised. Where the bond documents and deemed credit register showed that part of the credit had already been used as deemed credit and only the balance was debited for export, refund of the same utilised amount was not permissible. The original authority&#039;s rejection of the claim was therefore consistent with the notification, and the later appellate reasoning did not change the underlying factual position that the credit was not wholly unutilised. The refund claim was accordingly not sustainable to the extent the credit had already been utilised.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=230266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>