<?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 (12) TMI 409 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122163</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order directing refund to the consumer welfare fund based on Section 12B presumption. The Tribunal held that the duty passing on presumption under Section 12B does not apply when duty is paid post-clearance, citing relevant case law. The matter was remanded for fresh examination under Section 11B without relying on the Section 12B presumption, emphasizing the need to prove non-passing of duty incidence for refund eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:14:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 409 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122163</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order directing refund to the consumer welfare fund based on Section 12B presumption. The Tribunal held that the duty passing on presumption under Section 12B does not apply when duty is paid post-clearance, citing relevant case law. The matter was remanded for fresh examination under Section 11B without relying on the Section 12B presumption, emphasizing the need to prove non-passing of duty incidence for refund eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122163</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>