<?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 (11) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350134</link>
    <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was unavailable because supplies to an Asian Development Bank-financed project in India were not export or deemed export. The text notes that Rule 5 applies only where input services or inputs are used for final products cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, or for other categories expressly covered. The claimed deemed export treatment under para 8.3 of the EXIM Policy was not established, and the absence of foreign exchange realisation and a bill of export further supported the conclusion that the transaction was not an export clearance. The refund rejection was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Feb 2018 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=494230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 13 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350134</link>
      <description>Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was unavailable because supplies to an Asian Development Bank-financed project in India were not export or deemed export. The text notes that Rule 5 applies only where input services or inputs are used for final products cleared for export under bond or letter of undertaking, or for other categories expressly covered. The claimed deemed export treatment under para 8.3 of the EXIM Policy was not established, and the absence of foreign exchange realisation and a bill of export further supported the conclusion that the transaction was not an export clearance. The refund rejection was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>