<?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 (8) TMI 77 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1145</link>
    <description>Refund of Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because drawback had initially been claimed, where the drawback amount was later reversed. Applying Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the decisive factor was that there was no simultaneous retention of both drawback and refund benefit. The authorities denying refund on a double-benefit theory were therefore held inapplicable, and the refund was found admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 77 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1145</link>
      <description>Refund of Cenvat credit could not be denied merely because drawback had initially been claimed, where the drawback amount was later reversed. Applying Rule 5 and Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the decisive factor was that there was no simultaneous retention of both drawback and refund benefit. The authorities denying refund on a double-benefit theory were therefore held inapplicable, and the refund was found admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>