<?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>2001 (12) TMI 696 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105551</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the department, deciding to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund instead of directly to the importer. The claimant failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence had not been passed on, leading to this outcome. The decision overturned the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstated the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:01:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (12) TMI 696 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105551</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found in favor of the department, deciding to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund instead of directly to the importer. The claimant failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence had not been passed on, leading to this outcome. The decision overturned the Commissioner (Appeals) order and reinstated the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>