<?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 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265607</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the failure to debit the amount at the time of filing the refund claim did not bar the entitlement to refund. Once the appellants debited the amount from the CENVAT account, they fulfilled the notification conditions and became entitled to the refund from that date. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, granted the appeal, and directed the refund issuance after verifying the arithmetical accuracy within 30 days.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265607</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the failure to debit the amount at the time of filing the refund claim did not bar the entitlement to refund. Once the appellants debited the amount from the CENVAT account, they fulfilled the notification conditions and became entitled to the refund from that date. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, granted the appeal, and directed the refund issuance after verifying the arithmetical accuracy within 30 days.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265607</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>