<?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>1985 (12) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41686</link>
    <description>Concessional excise rebate under Notification No. 152/74 could not be retained on sugar already exported outside India and fully exempted under the export rebate notification. The Court held that the same quantity of sugar could not receive both the export rebate and the separate incentive rebate under Rule 8(1), because the export notification had already exhausted the duty benefit on that quantity. A wrongly allowed credit was treated as a rectifiable mistake in the running account, and the revenue&#039;s adjustment withdrawing the concession was upheld. The limitation objection did not assist the petitioner on the facts found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:09:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80215" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (12) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41686</link>
      <description>Concessional excise rebate under Notification No. 152/74 could not be retained on sugar already exported outside India and fully exempted under the export rebate notification. The Court held that the same quantity of sugar could not receive both the export rebate and the separate incentive rebate under Rule 8(1), because the export notification had already exhausted the duty benefit on that quantity. A wrongly allowed credit was treated as a rectifiable mistake in the running account, and the revenue&#039;s adjustment withdrawing the concession was upheld. The limitation objection did not assist the petitioner on the facts found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Dec 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>