<?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 (6) TMI 113 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361286</link>
    <description>Cash refund of CENVAT credit debited during proceedings was held permissible where the manufacturing unit had been closed, because Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was treated as not expressly barring refund in cash in such circumstances. The earlier appellate direction allowing cash refund was therefore regarded as in accordance with law, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2018 10:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 113 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361286</link>
      <description>Cash refund of CENVAT credit debited during proceedings was held permissible where the manufacturing unit had been closed, because Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was treated as not expressly barring refund in cash in such circumstances. The earlier appellate direction allowing cash refund was therefore regarded as in accordance with law, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>