<?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>2010 (6) TMI 356 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201849</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the appellate authority&#039;s decision and restored the order of adjudication, granting the refund to the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence presented by the appellant, including credit notes and financial records, demonstrated that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that if the duty burden was not transferred, the claim for refund could not be denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Jan 2011 18:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175441" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (6) TMI 356 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201849</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the appellate authority&#039;s decision and restored the order of adjudication, granting the refund to the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence presented by the appellant, including credit notes and financial records, demonstrated that the duty burden was not passed on to buyers. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized that if the duty burden was not transferred, the claim for refund could not be denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>