<?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>2003 (5) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107547</link>
    <description>A refund claim for duty paid by a job worker could not be finally rejected merely because the underlying valuation dispute remained pending. Since the proper basis of duty liability-cost basis or sale value basis-had not yet been determined in the show cause notice proceedings, the refund issue was premature. The claim therefore had to be reconsidered after final adjudication of the valuation notice, rather than being denied on that procedural ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:15:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 296 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107547</link>
      <description>A refund claim for duty paid by a job worker could not be finally rejected merely because the underlying valuation dispute remained pending. Since the proper basis of duty liability-cost basis or sale value basis-had not yet been determined in the show cause notice proceedings, the refund issue was premature. The claim therefore had to be reconsidered after final adjudication of the valuation notice, rather than being denied on that procedural ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>