<?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 (6) TMI 191 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260266</link>
    <description>Duty-paid inputs used in goods exported under bond may qualify for refund of excise duty where no Modvat credit has been taken, even if the export is connected with a DEEC arrangement through a merchant exporter. The Tribunal treated the decisive factors as proof that the inputs suffered duty, that no credit was availed, and that the finished goods were exported under bond. It further distinguished customs drawback from excise duty credit, holding that a drawback objection by itself did not amount to a double benefit that could defeat refund under Notification No. 85/87-CE. The refund claim was therefore upheld with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jun 2015 15:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386953" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 191 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260266</link>
      <description>Duty-paid inputs used in goods exported under bond may qualify for refund of excise duty where no Modvat credit has been taken, even if the export is connected with a DEEC arrangement through a merchant exporter. The Tribunal treated the decisive factors as proof that the inputs suffered duty, that no credit was availed, and that the finished goods were exported under bond. It further distinguished customs drawback from excise duty credit, holding that a drawback objection by itself did not amount to a double benefit that could defeat refund under Notification No. 85/87-CE. The refund claim was therefore upheld with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>