<?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 (12) TMI 89 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335444</link>
    <description>Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 was held admissible for goods exported under bond, because exports fall within the exception to the general restriction on credit. The fact that the final product attracted nil duty or was otherwise exempt did not, by itself, defeat the refund where the inputs were used in relation to the exported goods. Applying settled precedent, the claim was allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:13:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450331" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 89 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335444</link>
      <description>Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit under Rule 5 was held admissible for goods exported under bond, because exports fall within the exception to the general restriction on credit. The fact that the final product attracted nil duty or was otherwise exempt did not, by itself, defeat the refund where the inputs were used in relation to the exported goods. Applying settled precedent, the claim was allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>