<?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 (6) TMI 537 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212807</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant relief in a dispute over a refund claim for a downward price revision in supply orders of Electrical Aluminium Cables. The original adjudicating authority had approved the refund, but the Revenue challenged this decision, leading to an order demanding the refund amount. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s timely filing of the refund claim within the stipulated period, despite the absence of provisional assessment, was valid. The decision emphasized the relevance of specific case laws, including Premier Explosives Ltd., in supporting the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the refund, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 537 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212807</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant relief in a dispute over a refund claim for a downward price revision in supply orders of Electrical Aluminium Cables. The original adjudicating authority had approved the refund, but the Revenue challenged this decision, leading to an order demanding the refund amount. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s timely filing of the refund claim within the stipulated period, despite the absence of provisional assessment, was valid. The decision emphasized the relevance of specific case laws, including Premier Explosives Ltd., in supporting the appellant&#039;s entitlement to the refund, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>