<?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 600 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125746</link>
    <description>The appellate authority remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority to examine whether the duty incidence was passed on to others, as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The show cause notice was deemed validly served despite being returned unclaimed, and the limitation argument was rejected. The appeal was allowed solely for reconsideration of the unjust enrichment issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:42:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=162656" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 600 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125746</link>
      <description>The appellate authority remanded the case to the Adjudicating Authority to examine whether the duty incidence was passed on to others, as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The show cause notice was deemed validly served despite being returned unclaimed, and the limitation argument was rejected. The appeal was allowed solely for reconsideration of the unjust enrichment issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125746</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>