https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253645 The case involved a dispute over refund claims of customs duties paid during debonding by a 100% EOU. The CESTAT dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Commissioner (Appeals) misunderstood the nature of the goods, leading to an erroneous order. The government held that the duty paid during debonding was not eligible for rebate claims under Rule 18 and rejected the revision applications, stating they lacked merit. The applicant's refund claims were deemed inadmissible, and the government's decision was in favor of denying the rebate claims. en-us Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2014 17:51:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253645 The case involved a dispute over refund claims of customs duties paid during debonding by a 100% EOU. The CESTAT dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Commissioner (Appeals) misunderstood the nature of the goods, leading to an erroneous order. The government held that the duty paid during debonding was not eligible for rebate claims under Rule 18 and rejected the revision applications, stating they lacked merit. The applicant's refund claims were deemed inadmissible, and the government's decision was in favor of denying the rebate claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253645