<?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>2016 (3) TMI 998 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325814</link>
    <description>Limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was found inapplicable to a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules arising from accumulated export-related credit. The definition of &quot;relevant date&quot; in Section 11B did not provide a clear or workable starting point for such claims, so the limitation machinery could not be mechanically used to defeat the refund. On that basis, the refund claim remained maintainable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 15:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 998 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325814</link>
      <description>Limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was found inapplicable to a refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules arising from accumulated export-related credit. The definition of &quot;relevant date&quot; in Section 11B did not provide a clear or workable starting point for such claims, so the limitation machinery could not be mechanically used to defeat the refund. On that basis, the refund claim remained maintainable and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325814</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>