<?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 (6) TMI 772 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126460</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision rejecting the refund claim, emphasizing that the actual passing on of discounts, rather than procedural requirements like provisional assessment, should determine eligibility. Case law supported refund claims even without provisional assessment, and discounts passed on through credit notes were considered admissible deductions. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to comply with procedural aspects should not bar the appellants from claiming the benefit of deduction of turnover discount, remanding the matter for further examination to determine the admissible amount and unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 772 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126460</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision rejecting the refund claim, emphasizing that the actual passing on of discounts, rather than procedural requirements like provisional assessment, should determine eligibility. Case law supported refund claims even without provisional assessment, and discounts passed on through credit notes were considered admissible deductions. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to comply with procedural aspects should not bar the appellants from claiming the benefit of deduction of turnover discount, remanding the matter for further examination to determine the admissible amount and unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126460</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>