<?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 (10) TMI 459 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114635</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding a refund claimed by the respondents. The decision was based on evidence showing that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers, supported by the invoice, Chartered Accountant Certificate, and Trade Bulletin. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s argument of unjust enrichment, emphasizing the thorough analysis conducted by the Commissioner in reaching the conclusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:50:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151634" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 459 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114635</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding a refund claimed by the respondents. The decision was based on evidence showing that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers, supported by the invoice, Chartered Accountant Certificate, and Trade Bulletin. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue&#039;s argument of unjust enrichment, emphasizing the thorough analysis conducted by the Commissioner in reaching the conclusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>