<?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>2005 (1) TMI 435 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114866</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the classification of goods, resulting in a lower duty rate of 15% ad valorem. Although the refund was denied due to the duty burden being passed on to customers, the tribunal held that any excess duty paid should be refunded. The tribunal emphasized that the price charged should be considered as cum-duty-price, ensuring that the duty burden is not transferred to customers. The case was remanded to the original authority for the calculation and approval of the refund amount, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the inclusive price of goods sold.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:22:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151865" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 435 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114866</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, ruled in favor of the appellants in a case concerning the classification of goods, resulting in a lower duty rate of 15% ad valorem. Although the refund was denied due to the duty burden being passed on to customers, the tribunal held that any excess duty paid should be refunded. The tribunal emphasized that the price charged should be considered as cum-duty-price, ensuring that the duty burden is not transferred to customers. The case was remanded to the original authority for the calculation and approval of the refund amount, emphasizing the correct interpretation of the inclusive price of goods sold.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>