<?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 (7) TMI 611 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249575</link>
    <description>Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 was treated as covering refund of accumulated CENVAT credit relatable to inputs and input services used in clearances treated as deemed exports. The goods were cleared to advance authorisation holders under B-17 bonds and ARE-1s, and the Tribunal view relied on accepted that deemed exports are not excluded from the refund mechanism. Authorities cited by Revenue were distinguished on facts and were held not to govern this setting. On that basis, refund was considered prima facie admissible and Revenue was held not to have established a prima facie case for stay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=360038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (7) TMI 611 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249575</link>
      <description>Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Notification No. 5/2006 was treated as covering refund of accumulated CENVAT credit relatable to inputs and input services used in clearances treated as deemed exports. The goods were cleared to advance authorisation holders under B-17 bonds and ARE-1s, and the Tribunal view relied on accepted that deemed exports are not excluded from the refund mechanism. Authorities cited by Revenue were distinguished on facts and were held not to govern this setting. On that basis, refund was considered prima facie admissible and Revenue was held not to have established a prima facie case for stay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249575</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>