<?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 (5) TMI 671 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342933</link>
    <description>The appellant was deemed eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit in relation to clearances made to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The court relied on legal precedents establishing that deemed exports to an EOU should be treated similarly to physical exports. The denial of the refund based on the nature of the supplies was considered unjustified, leading to the rejection of the impugned order and granting the appellant the refund. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant with any consequential reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 May 2017 06:00:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468673" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 671 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342933</link>
      <description>The appellant was deemed eligible for a refund of CENVAT credit in relation to clearances made to a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The court relied on legal precedents establishing that deemed exports to an EOU should be treated similarly to physical exports. The denial of the refund based on the nature of the supplies was considered unjustified, leading to the rejection of the impugned order and granting the appellant the refund. The appeals were allowed in favor of the appellant with any consequential reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342933</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>