<?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 (4) TMI 173 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245675</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) is subject to the limitation period in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant date for filing such refund claims is the date of export, because refund entitlement arises only on export. A contrary view based on an earlier decision concerning a different rule was distinguished. The refund claims were therefore time-barred and the reduction of refund was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=351130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 173 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245675</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilized Cenvat credit under Rule 5 read with Notification No. 05/2006-CE(NT) is subject to the limitation period in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The relevant date for filing such refund claims is the date of export, because refund entitlement arises only on export. A contrary view based on an earlier decision concerning a different rule was distinguished. The refund claims were therefore time-barred and the reduction of refund was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>