<?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 (9) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112630</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a case concerning the rejection of a refund application for Central Excise duty. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the duty amount had not been passed on to the buyer as alleged, based on the interpretation of sale invoices and the timing of duty payment. The Tribunal concluded that there was no unjust enrichment and granted the appellant the refund of Rs. 89,630, emphasizing the significance of accurately analyzing sale documents to establish entitlement to a refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 10:14:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112630</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in a case concerning the rejection of a refund application for Central Excise duty. The appellant successfully demonstrated that the duty amount had not been passed on to the buyer as alleged, based on the interpretation of sale invoices and the timing of duty payment. The Tribunal concluded that there was no unjust enrichment and granted the appellant the refund of Rs. 89,630, emphasizing the significance of accurately analyzing sale documents to establish entitlement to a refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>