<?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 523 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111636</link>
    <description>Returned goods re-issued without any process amounting to manufacture did not attract duty on the subsequent clearance, and any duty collected on that re-issue was refundable. The refund claim, however, was directed at duty paid on the initial clearance, which had been properly levied in accordance with law. Because the claim failed on merits, limitation did not survive as a live issue. The refund was therefore not admissible on the basis claimed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:43:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 523 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111636</link>
      <description>Returned goods re-issued without any process amounting to manufacture did not attract duty on the subsequent clearance, and any duty collected on that re-issue was refundable. The refund claim, however, was directed at duty paid on the initial clearance, which had been properly levied in accordance with law. Because the claim failed on merits, limitation did not survive as a live issue. The refund was therefore not admissible on the basis claimed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111636</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>