<?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 (8) TMI 464 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116418</link>
    <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s application for stay of the impugned order and held that the respondents were eligible for a refund of excise duty on the purchase of an old crane. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of unjust enrichment and statutory provisions under the Central Excise Act, ruling in favor of the respondents and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:21:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153416" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 464 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116418</link>
      <description>The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s application for stay of the impugned order and held that the respondents were eligible for a refund of excise duty on the purchase of an old crane. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of unjust enrichment and statutory provisions under the Central Excise Act, ruling in favor of the respondents and dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>