<?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>2014 (1) TMI 1810 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194351</link>
    <description>Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on deemed exports to 100% EOUs under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was examined against binding precedent. The document notes that deemed exports were treated at par with physical exports for the purpose of refund under the notification, but the refund claim was not accepted on that basis. The respondent was therefore held not entitled to the claimed refund, and the appeals were rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 18:11:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (1) TMI 1810 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194351</link>
      <description>Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on deemed exports to 100% EOUs under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) was examined against binding precedent. The document notes that deemed exports were treated at par with physical exports for the purpose of refund under the notification, but the refund claim was not accepted on that basis. The respondent was therefore held not entitled to the claimed refund, and the appeals were rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>