<?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>2014 (3) TMI 51 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244594</link>
    <description>The Gujarat High Court allowed the respondent&#039;s refund claim of excess duty paid without challenging the Annual Production Capacity fixed by the Revenue. The court emphasized that the capacity determination is administrative, not judicial, and not challenging it does not bar a refund claim. The court set aside previous orders rejecting the refund claims, remanding the case for further consideration within six months. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the respondent&#039;s cross objection was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:17:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 51 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244594</link>
      <description>The Gujarat High Court allowed the respondent&#039;s refund claim of excess duty paid without challenging the Annual Production Capacity fixed by the Revenue. The court emphasized that the capacity determination is administrative, not judicial, and not challenging it does not bar a refund claim. The court set aside previous orders rejecting the refund claims, remanding the case for further consideration within six months. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the respondent&#039;s cross objection was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>