<?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 966 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256966</link>
    <description>An appeal before the Tribunal was held not maintainable where the dispute related to rebate of duty on goods supplied to a Special Economic Zone. The governing provisions under the Central Excise and SEZ framework barred Tribunal jurisdiction in matters concerning rebate of duty of excise on exported goods. The proper remedy was therefore the statutory revisionary forum before the Government of India, Revision Authority. The decision addressed only forum competence and did not examine the merits of the rebate claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:37:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 966 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256966</link>
      <description>An appeal before the Tribunal was held not maintainable where the dispute related to rebate of duty on goods supplied to a Special Economic Zone. The governing provisions under the Central Excise and SEZ framework barred Tribunal jurisdiction in matters concerning rebate of duty of excise on exported goods. The proper remedy was therefore the statutory revisionary forum before the Government of India, Revision Authority. The decision addressed only forum competence and did not examine the merits of the rebate claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>