<?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>Eligibility for CENVAT refund u/r 5 and jurisdictional overlap: earlier Commissioner&#039;s non-original order quashed; cases remanded</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95975</link>
    <description>The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner&#039;s order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked &quot;poaching&quot; on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner&#039;s order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=877920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Eligibility for CENVAT refund u/r 5 and jurisdictional overlap: earlier Commissioner&#039;s non-original order quashed; cases remanded</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95975</link>
      <description>The Tribunal addressed (1) overlap of jurisdiction and principle of comity: finding the earlier Commissioner&#039;s order was non-original, lacked application of mind and risked &quot;poaching&quot; on concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal held such order excluded further support and set it aside - outcome: Commissioner&#039;s order quashed. (2) Eligibility for refund under rule 5, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004: the Tribunal found rejection rested on absence of a prescribed mechanism to ascertain prospective use and that no show-cause specifying deficiencies was issued, depriving the applicant of opportunity to be heard - outcome: applications restored to the original authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and procedure; appeal allowed. - CESTAT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95975</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>