<?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 (4) TMI 21 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=564</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilised Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs used in exported goods was held admissible where the manufacturer had not availed drawback or rebate in respect of the same duty. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.) was read to bar refund only when the manufacturer himself had claimed the relevant drawback or rebate. Customs drawback claimed by a merchant-exporter was treated as relating to a different duty component, so it did not create a double benefit for the manufacturer. The refund claim therefore could not be denied merely because customs drawback had been taken on the export consignment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40010" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 21 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=564</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilised Modvat/Cenvat credit on inputs used in exported goods was held admissible where the manufacturer had not availed drawback or rebate in respect of the same duty. Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. (N.T.) was read to bar refund only when the manufacturer himself had claimed the relevant drawback or rebate. Customs drawback claimed by a merchant-exporter was treated as relating to a different duty component, so it did not create a double benefit for the manufacturer. The refund claim therefore could not be denied merely because customs drawback had been taken on the export consignment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>