<?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>2019 (1) TMI 699 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373534</link>
    <description>A refund cannot be disturbed merely because the amount was paid in cash when the original reversal was made from the CENVAT credit account. On the stated facts, no additional credit accrued to the assessee and no extra burden shifted to the exchequer, so the mode of refund did not change the duty position in substance. The dispute was therefore revenue neutral, and the refund sanction was sustained while the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Jan 2019 11:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=553075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 699 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373534</link>
      <description>A refund cannot be disturbed merely because the amount was paid in cash when the original reversal was made from the CENVAT credit account. On the stated facts, no additional credit accrued to the assessee and no extra burden shifted to the exchequer, so the mode of refund did not change the duty position in substance. The dispute was therefore revenue neutral, and the refund sanction was sustained while the impugned order was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373534</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>