<?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 (6) TMI 499 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381422</link>
    <description>Refund claims on clearances to the Indian Navy, Coast Guard and ship stores required fresh verification of the exemption certificates, supply orders and proof of duty payment. The record suggested prima facie compliance with the exemption conditions for nil-rate clearance, including production of the competent naval authority&#039;s certificate, and the supply terms also bore on the objection of unjust enrichment. However, the lower authorities had not conclusively examined all relevant documents and had noted that proof of duty payment on the disputed clearances was not produced. The matter was therefore remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2019 05:52:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574829" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 499 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381422</link>
      <description>Refund claims on clearances to the Indian Navy, Coast Guard and ship stores required fresh verification of the exemption certificates, supply orders and proof of duty payment. The record suggested prima facie compliance with the exemption conditions for nil-rate clearance, including production of the competent naval authority&#039;s certificate, and the supply terms also bore on the objection of unjust enrichment. However, the lower authorities had not conclusively examined all relevant documents and had noted that proof of duty payment on the disputed clearances was not produced. The matter was therefore remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>