<?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>2009 (5) TMI 737 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126399</link>
    <description>Where an amount paid by the assessee was not appropriated in the adjudication order, it could be treated as refundable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in allowing the assessee to take steps for refund. Since the revenue did not challenge the adjudication order on the issue of non-appropriation, there was no infirmity in granting such relief, and the revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2017 12:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 737 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126399</link>
      <description>Where an amount paid by the assessee was not appropriated in the adjudication order, it could be treated as refundable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in allowing the assessee to take steps for refund. Since the revenue did not challenge the adjudication order on the issue of non-appropriation, there was no infirmity in granting such relief, and the revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126399</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>