<?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 (11) TMI 340 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117316</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision, ruling that the burden of duty on the turnover tax element was borne by the assessee and not passed on to others. This finding supported the conclusion that the refund claim was not affected by unjust enrichment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:17:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 340 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117316</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority&#039;s decision, ruling that the burden of duty on the turnover tax element was borne by the assessee and not passed on to others. This finding supported the conclusion that the refund claim was not affected by unjust enrichment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117316</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>