<?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>2018 (1) TMI 296 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353560</link>
    <description>Sanctioned rebate was validly appropriated against outstanding central excise dues arising from finalisation of provisional assessment because the unpaid liability continued to subsist after prior recovery proceedings and encashment of the bank guarantee. The appellant failed to show that the amount adjusted was not due to the Revenue, so the rebate could be set off against the remaining duty liability. The adjustment was upheld, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 09:14:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 296 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353560</link>
      <description>Sanctioned rebate was validly appropriated against outstanding central excise dues arising from finalisation of provisional assessment because the unpaid liability continued to subsist after prior recovery proceedings and encashment of the bank guarantee. The appellant failed to show that the amount adjusted was not due to the Revenue, so the rebate could be set off against the remaining duty liability. The adjustment was upheld, and the challenge to the impugned order failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353560</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>