<?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 (12) TMI 1174 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372405</link>
    <description>An assessee availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 39/01-CE was entitled to refund of Education Cess and Secondary &amp; Higher Education Cess paid from PLA because the controversy was already covered by the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling on the same issue. In view of that settled position, denial of refund was not sustainable, and the exemption notification supported the refund claim. The impugned order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2019 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548487" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1174 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372405</link>
      <description>An assessee availing area-based exemption under Notification No. 39/01-CE was entitled to refund of Education Cess and Secondary &amp; Higher Education Cess paid from PLA because the controversy was already covered by the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling on the same issue. In view of that settled position, denial of refund was not sustainable, and the exemption notification supported the refund claim. The impugned order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>