<?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 1429 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340926</link>
    <description>Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was treated as admissible where imported sanitary fittings were incorporated into apartments sold under a composite VAT scheme. The absence of separate sale invoices and invoice endorsements for non-availment of CENVAT credit was not regarded as fatal because the fittings formed part of the agreement value on which VAT was paid, and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate was produced in line with Board Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. The refund conditions were considered satisfied to the extent practicable, and rejection solely because the transaction fell under a composite VAT regime was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463397" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1429 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340926</link>
      <description>Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was treated as admissible where imported sanitary fittings were incorporated into apartments sold under a composite VAT scheme. The absence of separate sale invoices and invoice endorsements for non-availment of CENVAT credit was not regarded as fatal because the fittings formed part of the agreement value on which VAT was paid, and a Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate was produced in line with Board Circular No. 6/2008-Cus. The refund conditions were considered satisfied to the extent practicable, and rejection solely because the transaction fell under a composite VAT regime was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>