<?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>2010 (4) TMI 409 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77760</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the appellate Commissioner lacked the power of remand due to an amendment in Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, setting aside the order credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the issue of unjust enrichment by the original authority, emphasizing overlooked crucial facts and allowing the assessee to submit additional documents and have a personal hearing opportunity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115919" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 409 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77760</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the appellate Commissioner lacked the power of remand due to an amendment in Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, setting aside the order credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the issue of unjust enrichment by the original authority, emphasizing overlooked crucial facts and allowing the assessee to submit additional documents and have a personal hearing opportunity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>