<?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>2025 (6) TMI 1805 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773692</link>
    <description>Refund of Central Excise duty paid twice on clearances under the Served From India Scheme could not be refused merely because the installation certificate from the jurisdictional officer was filed late, where the assessee had already submitted a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate within time. The notification permitted either form of certification for capital goods, and the goods had reached the consignee&#039;s premises with re-warehousing completed. On those facts, insistence on one specific mode of proof and rejection of refund solely for delayed formal certification was not justified, and the refund was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 08:36:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=831962" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1805 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773692</link>
      <description>Refund of Central Excise duty paid twice on clearances under the Served From India Scheme could not be refused merely because the installation certificate from the jurisdictional officer was filed late, where the assessee had already submitted a Chartered Engineer&#039;s certificate within time. The notification permitted either form of certification for capital goods, and the goods had reached the consignee&#039;s premises with re-warehousing completed. On those facts, insistence on one specific mode of proof and rejection of refund solely for delayed formal certification was not justified, and the refund was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>