<?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>2004 (2) TMI 514 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111476</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal of the appellants regarding the refund claim, finding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be invoked as the burden of the Social Security Cess was not passed on to the buyers. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing discrepancies between the show cause notice and the order. It was concluded that the appellants had not shifted the burden to the buyers, leading to the grant of consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:36:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 514 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111476</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal of the appellants regarding the refund claim, finding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be invoked as the burden of the Social Security Cess was not passed on to the buyers. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing discrepancies between the show cause notice and the order. It was concluded that the appellants had not shifted the burden to the buyers, leading to the grant of consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111476</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>