<?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 (8) TMI 343 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107914</link>
    <description>Refund of excess Central Excise duty was upheld because the claim was filed within the limitation period under Section 11-B and the duty had been paid provisionally until the price lists were finalised. The original rejection on limitation and unjust enrichment was not sustained, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowance of the refund was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 16:43:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144931" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 343 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107914</link>
      <description>Refund of excess Central Excise duty was upheld because the claim was filed within the limitation period under Section 11-B and the duty had been paid provisionally until the price lists were finalised. The original rejection on limitation and unjust enrichment was not sustained, and the Commissioner (Appeals) allowance of the refund was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>