<?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>2008 (12) TMI 598 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125744</link>
    <description>Provisional pricing under advance and connected purchase orders justified refund of excess central excise duty where later communications and departmental clarification confirmed downward revision of the contract prices. The material on record showed that the appellant did not realise any amount above the revised prices, and there was no finding of excess recovery after revision. On that basis, the claim for refund was accepted on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:38:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162654" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 598 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125744</link>
      <description>Provisional pricing under advance and connected purchase orders justified refund of excess central excise duty where later communications and departmental clarification confirmed downward revision of the contract prices. The material on record showed that the appellant did not realise any amount above the revised prices, and there was no finding of excess recovery after revision. On that basis, the claim for refund was accepted on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125744</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>