<?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 (6) TMI 651 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234826</link>
    <description>The High Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order in a case concerning refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Court emphasized the elimination of the 1:1 correlation requirement between inputs and final products for refund eligibility as per the amended Notification No. 7/2010. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the revised notification, stressing the need to reassess refund applications without strict adherence to the previous correlation condition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197236" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 651 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234826</link>
      <description>The High Court set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order in a case concerning refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Court emphasized the elimination of the 1:1 correlation requirement between inputs and final products for refund eligibility as per the amended Notification No. 7/2010. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the revised notification, stressing the need to reassess refund applications without strict adherence to the previous correlation condition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>