<?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>1999 (4) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91381</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower authorities&#039; decision to reject the refund claims under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. It held that the appellants manufactured the goods independently for themselves, not on behalf of the Bangalore customers. Consequently, the denial of the exemption was deemed unjustified, and the appellants were entitled to the duty refund, provided the duty burden was not transferred to the customers. The case was remanded for verification by the lower authorities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:28:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128443" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 217 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91381</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the lower authorities&#039; decision to reject the refund claims under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. It held that the appellants manufactured the goods independently for themselves, not on behalf of the Bangalore customers. Consequently, the denial of the exemption was deemed unjustified, and the appellants were entitled to the duty refund, provided the duty burden was not transferred to the customers. The case was remanded for verification by the lower authorities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>