<?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 (7) TMI 429 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202757</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized that the appellant was aware of the transaction value at the time of invoicing, and the subsequent price reduction by the buyer did not warrant a refund. The judgment highlighted the importance of provisional assessment in cases where the actual price is unknown at the time of clearance, ultimately denying the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176329" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 429 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202757</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It emphasized that the appellant was aware of the transaction value at the time of invoicing, and the subsequent price reduction by the buyer did not warrant a refund. The judgment highlighted the importance of provisional assessment in cases where the actual price is unknown at the time of clearance, ultimately denying the appellant&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>