<?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>2003 (3) TMI 645 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115962</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondents, ruling that the excess duty erroneously paid had not been passed on to the buyer. The verification of accounts and documentary evidence supported this conclusion, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:30:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 645 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115962</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision in favor of the respondents, ruling that the excess duty erroneously paid had not been passed on to the buyer. The verification of accounts and documentary evidence supported this conclusion, resulting in the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115962</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>