<?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>2002 (4) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101779</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court classified paper-based decorative laminated sheets under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, resulting in a demand for Central Excise duty of Rs. 68,22,693. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand, stating that the initial refund was erroneously granted due to the change in classification. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s argument that the duty refund became due following the Supreme Court&#039;s decision, and since the Tribunal&#039;s decision was overturned, the duty refund was rightfully claimed back by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the demand for Central Excise duty from the Appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:03:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=138828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (4) TMI 341 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101779</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court classified paper-based decorative laminated sheets under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, resulting in a demand for Central Excise duty of Rs. 68,22,693. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand, stating that the initial refund was erroneously granted due to the change in classification. The Tribunal upheld the Revenue&#039;s argument that the duty refund became due following the Supreme Court&#039;s decision, and since the Tribunal&#039;s decision was overturned, the duty refund was rightfully claimed back by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the demand for Central Excise duty from the Appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>