<?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 (10) TMI 350 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120663</link>
    <description>The Department appealed the refund claim sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV, to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I, resulting in the Order-in-Original being set aside. The case involved the payment of duty on Ready made garments, cleared under protest due to an erroneous belief of liability for Excise Duty. The Tribunal clarified that such garments were not subject to Excise Duty, leading to a refund claim by the assessee based on the loss incurred. The court stayed the impugned order pending appeal, recognizing the absence of unjust enrichment and recommending refund verification by the Range Superintendent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jul 2012 13:50:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=157658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 350 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120663</link>
      <description>The Department appealed the refund claim sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV, to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Mumbai Zone-I, resulting in the Order-in-Original being set aside. The case involved the payment of duty on Ready made garments, cleared under protest due to an erroneous belief of liability for Excise Duty. The Tribunal clarified that such garments were not subject to Excise Duty, leading to a refund claim by the assessee based on the loss incurred. The court stayed the impugned order pending appeal, recognizing the absence of unjust enrichment and recommending refund verification by the Range Superintendent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>