<?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 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=606</link>
    <description>Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was read as permitting refund of unutilised CENVAT credit where adjustment was not possible, and the absence of an express refund bar did not defeat the claim. Because the assessee had closed the factory, ceased manufacture, and exited the Modvat scheme, the rule was treated as inapplicable as a ground to reject refund. The absence of production or clearance, together with closure of business, supported entitlement to refund, and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 May 2025 16:54:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=606</link>
      <description>Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was read as permitting refund of unutilised CENVAT credit where adjustment was not possible, and the absence of an express refund bar did not defeat the claim. Because the assessee had closed the factory, ceased manufacture, and exited the Modvat scheme, the rule was treated as inapplicable as a ground to reject refund. The absence of production or clearance, together with closure of business, supported entitlement to refund, and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=606</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>