<?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>2006 (5) TMI 8 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE (BOMBAY)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=494</link>
    <description>The court ruled that under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, a rebate can be claimed on either finished goods or raw materials, but not both simultaneously. The court interpreted the word &quot;or&quot; in Rule 18 as conjunctive, rejecting the argument that it should be read as &quot;and.&quot; It emphasized that old Central Excise Rules and notifications are irrelevant post-2002 rules. The court clarified that Rule 18 and Rule 19 serve different purposes and do not allow for simultaneous rebates on both finished goods and raw materials. The matter was remanded for a decision on rebate claims for either goods or materials, not both.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39942" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 8 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE (BOMBAY)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=494</link>
      <description>The court ruled that under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, a rebate can be claimed on either finished goods or raw materials, but not both simultaneously. The court interpreted the word &quot;or&quot; in Rule 18 as conjunctive, rejecting the argument that it should be read as &quot;and.&quot; It emphasized that old Central Excise Rules and notifications are irrelevant post-2002 rules. The court clarified that Rule 18 and Rule 19 serve different purposes and do not allow for simultaneous rebates on both finished goods and raw materials. The matter was remanded for a decision on rebate claims for either goods or materials, not both.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>