<?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 509 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116573</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the refund of duty paid on the unreacted C4 Raffinate returned to their factory. The Commissioner&#039;s argument that the returned product was different was rejected, as it was classified under the same category as the original product. The appellants were deemed entitled to the refund under relevant notifications, subject to unjust enrichment provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:00:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 509 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116573</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the refund of duty paid on the unreacted C4 Raffinate returned to their factory. The Commissioner&#039;s argument that the returned product was different was rejected, as it was classified under the same category as the original product. The appellants were deemed entitled to the refund under relevant notifications, subject to unjust enrichment provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116573</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>