<?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>2015 (2) TMI 267 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256267</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant&#039;s rebate claims for exported stainless steel utensils under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Despite arguing procedural compliance except for declaring input-output ratios, the appellant&#039;s failure to meet specific conditions outlined in the notifications led to denial of the rebate. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to prescribed conditions and procedures, dismissing the appeal and affirming the rejection of the rebate claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 267 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256267</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant&#039;s rebate claims for exported stainless steel utensils under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Despite arguing procedural compliance except for declaring input-output ratios, the appellant&#039;s failure to meet specific conditions outlined in the notifications led to denial of the rebate. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to prescribed conditions and procedures, dismissing the appeal and affirming the rejection of the rebate claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>