<?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 (12) TMI 492 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254148</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected stay applications by the Revenue against refund claims allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for clearances to 100% EOUs classified as exports. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no grounds for a stay, supporting the allowance of refunds for inputs used in goods cleared to 100% EOUs, even in cases of deemed exports. The Tribunal emphasized the legal validity and relevance of the cited precedents, aligning with the Commissioner&#039;s decision to permit the refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2014 20:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 492 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254148</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected stay applications by the Revenue against refund claims allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for clearances to 100% EOUs classified as exports. Relying on High Court decisions, the Tribunal found no grounds for a stay, supporting the allowance of refunds for inputs used in goods cleared to 100% EOUs, even in cases of deemed exports. The Tribunal emphasized the legal validity and relevance of the cited precedents, aligning with the Commissioner&#039;s decision to permit the refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>