<?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>2006 (6) TMI 365 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119746</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the lack of necessity for a show cause notice as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The decision was based on consistent reasoning provided by both the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the non-refundability of duty in cases where customers do not approve bills. Despite arguments based on a previous tribunal decision on unjust enrichment, the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:25:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156742" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 365 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119746</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the lack of necessity for a show cause notice as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The decision was based on consistent reasoning provided by both the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the non-refundability of duty in cases where customers do not approve bills. Despite arguments based on a previous tribunal decision on unjust enrichment, the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>