<?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 (12) TMI 1017 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209554</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the rectification application regarding the mention of Section 11B in the final order, clarifying that unjust enrichment provisions should not apply to the refund claim. Additionally, the tribunal directed the original authority to consider the pending refund claim in line with the remand order, rejecting the application seeking specific directions in this regard.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1017 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209554</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the rectification application regarding the mention of Section 11B in the final order, clarifying that unjust enrichment provisions should not apply to the refund claim. Additionally, the tribunal directed the original authority to consider the pending refund claim in line with the remand order, rejecting the application seeking specific directions in this regard.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>