<?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 (10) TMI 419 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265144</link>
    <description>Unutilised Cenvat credit was refundable under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 where excisable goods were supplied to registered garment manufacturers/exporters under the notified export procurement procedure. The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner&#039;s certification, the manufacturers&#039; bonds, and the export of finished goods without drawback satisfied the relevant conditions, and the assessee could not be denied refund merely because shipping bills, bills of lading and related export documents were in the garment exporters&#039; names. Documentary requirements in Notification No. 11/2002 were treated as inapplicable because the assessee was not the direct exporter. Refund was therefore admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2015 07:56:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 419 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265144</link>
      <description>Unutilised Cenvat credit was refundable under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 where excisable goods were supplied to registered garment manufacturers/exporters under the notified export procurement procedure. The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner&#039;s certification, the manufacturers&#039; bonds, and the export of finished goods without drawback satisfied the relevant conditions, and the assessee could not be denied refund merely because shipping bills, bills of lading and related export documents were in the garment exporters&#039; names. Documentary requirements in Notification No. 11/2002 were treated as inapplicable because the assessee was not the direct exporter. Refund was therefore admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265144</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>