<?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 (1) TMI 1012 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209170</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue. The decision was based on the failure of the department to prove passing on of duty incidence, as required for the refund claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2015 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182622" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1012 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209170</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue. The decision was based on the failure of the department to prove passing on of duty incidence, as required for the refund claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209170</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>