<?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>2007 (11) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123168</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting the refund claim for duty paid on physician samples manufactured by the appellant. The rejection of the refund claim for duty paid on physician samples cleared as a job worker was upheld. The penalty imposed on the appellant for the erroneous refund claim was set aside due to the refund being sanctioned based on higher judicial forum findings and not due to mala fide intentions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:19:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160139" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123168</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting the refund claim for duty paid on physician samples manufactured by the appellant. The rejection of the refund claim for duty paid on physician samples cleared as a job worker was upheld. The penalty imposed on the appellant for the erroneous refund claim was set aside due to the refund being sanctioned based on higher judicial forum findings and not due to mala fide intentions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123168</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>