<?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 (12) TMI 1272 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353003</link>
    <description>CENVAT credit and consequential refund were treated as available where excise duty had in fact been paid on goods received from a sister unit, and the Revenue did not dispute that payment. The text states that credit or refund could not be denied merely on the premise that duty ought not to have been payable, especially when no undue enrichment by the supplier was shown. It also notes that the exemption regime for transfers between export-oriented units was conditional, requiring prior intimation and prescribed procedure, and those conditions were not demonstrated to have been satisfied. On that basis, the assessee was said to be entitled to the benefit claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2018 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1272 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353003</link>
      <description>CENVAT credit and consequential refund were treated as available where excise duty had in fact been paid on goods received from a sister unit, and the Revenue did not dispute that payment. The text states that credit or refund could not be denied merely on the premise that duty ought not to have been payable, especially when no undue enrichment by the supplier was shown. It also notes that the exemption regime for transfers between export-oriented units was conditional, requiring prior intimation and prescribed procedure, and those conditions were not demonstrated to have been satisfied. On that basis, the assessee was said to be entitled to the benefit claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>