<?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 (5) TMI 527 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259653</link>
    <description>The Tribunal referred the issue of jurisdiction over appeals concerning rebate claims for goods supplied to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) within India to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal clarified that as per the proviso to Section 35B(1), appeals do lie when goods are supplied to an SEZ within India, as they are not considered exports outside India. The decision aimed to resolve conflicting interpretations and establish a consistent approach between the Tribunal and the Revisionary Authority on hearing such appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385071" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 527 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259653</link>
      <description>The Tribunal referred the issue of jurisdiction over appeals concerning rebate claims for goods supplied to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) within India to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal clarified that as per the proviso to Section 35B(1), appeals do lie when goods are supplied to an SEZ within India, as they are not considered exports outside India. The decision aimed to resolve conflicting interpretations and establish a consistent approach between the Tribunal and the Revisionary Authority on hearing such appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259653</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>