<?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>2026 (2) TMI 1017 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786869</link>
    <description>Where the demanded rebate rate was not applicable, the claim for rebate at the standard rate under the notification could still be examined on its own merits. The Tribunal held that the unavailability of the demanded rate did not by itself bar consideration of the standard-rate rebate claim, and admissibility had to be tested afresh against the statutory requirements. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination of the rebate claim in light of the notification and the facts and law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2026 09:29:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 1017 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786869</link>
      <description>Where the demanded rebate rate was not applicable, the claim for rebate at the standard rate under the notification could still be examined on its own merits. The Tribunal held that the unavailability of the demanded rate did not by itself bar consideration of the standard-rate rebate claim, and admissibility had to be tested afresh against the statutory requirements. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh examination of the rebate claim in light of the notification and the facts and law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>