<?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>2007 (10) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4471</link>
    <description>Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on exports under Rule 5 cannot be denied merely for alleged non-compliance with procedural conditions in the Appendix to Notification No. 11/2002-CE (N.T.) where export and credit entitlement are otherwise undisputed. The Tribunal treated the notification as prescribing procedural safeguards that cannot override the substantive refund entitlement under the rule. It also found that the objection regarding multiple refund filings in the same claim period required factual verification before any final relief could be granted. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after verification of the filing position and an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4471</link>
      <description>Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on exports under Rule 5 cannot be denied merely for alleged non-compliance with procedural conditions in the Appendix to Notification No. 11/2002-CE (N.T.) where export and credit entitlement are otherwise undisputed. The Tribunal treated the notification as prescribing procedural safeguards that cannot override the substantive refund entitlement under the rule. It also found that the objection regarding multiple refund filings in the same claim period required factual verification before any final relief could be granted. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration after verification of the filing position and an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>