<?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>2011 (7) TMI 488 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208029</link>
    <description>The court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to remand the matter and emphasized the need to consider unjust enrichment and limitation in refund claims. Despite setting aside the order, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, instructing a re-examination of the case in accordance with the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (7) TMI 488 - CESTAT, DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208029</link>
      <description>The court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to remand the matter and emphasized the need to consider unjust enrichment and limitation in refund claims. Despite setting aside the order, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, instructing a re-examination of the case in accordance with the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>