<?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 (5) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790927</link>
    <description>Refund rejection cannot rest on a ground absent from the show cause notice; treating the matter as settled under the Central Excise framework could not replace the notice&#039;s stated basis for denial. Where Cenvat credit on outward freight was reversed with interest following an audit objection but was subsequently recognised as admissible, the reversal was unwarranted and remained refundable. The appeal succeeded on both grounds, the impugned order was set aside, and the refund claim was remanded for sanction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 07:56:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=899717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790927</link>
      <description>Refund rejection cannot rest on a ground absent from the show cause notice; treating the matter as settled under the Central Excise framework could not replace the notice&#039;s stated basis for denial. Where Cenvat credit on outward freight was reversed with interest following an audit objection but was subsequently recognised as admissible, the reversal was unwarranted and remained refundable. The appeal succeeded on both grounds, the impugned order was set aside, and the refund claim was remanded for sanction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790927</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>