<?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>2017 (3) TMI 849 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340346</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to ascertain the correct amount of eligible accumulated credit due to factory closure. The decision emphasized that closure-related credit should not be denied solely due to procedural lapses, citing legal precedents. The judgment underscored the distinction between claims related to exports and those from factory closure, supporting the eligibility of the refund claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:54:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 849 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340346</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, remanding the matter to ascertain the correct amount of eligible accumulated credit due to factory closure. The decision emphasized that closure-related credit should not be denied solely due to procedural lapses, citing legal precedents. The judgment underscored the distinction between claims related to exports and those from factory closure, supporting the eligibility of the refund claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>