<?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>2020 (9) TMI 987 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398868</link>
    <description>Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on exports and service tax paid under reverse charge was treated as requiring reconsideration because the same issues had already been examined in earlier proceedings and a prior remand had led to de novo refund adjudication. The appellate authority was therefore directed to decide the present matter afresh on merits after giving the appellant a personal hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 987 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398868</link>
      <description>Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit on exports and service tax paid under reverse charge was treated as requiring reconsideration because the same issues had already been examined in earlier proceedings and a prior remand had led to de novo refund adjudication. The appellate authority was therefore directed to decide the present matter afresh on merits after giving the appellant a personal hearing. The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398868</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>