<?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>2013 (1) TMI 277 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220171</link>
    <description>Refund sanctioned pursuant to an earlier appellate order could not be questioned merely because Revenue&#039;s appeal against that order was stated to be pending. The note records that the underlying order-in-appeal had already been dismissed by the Tribunal when the matter was considered, so the basis for disputing the refund no longer survived. On that footing, the refund was treated as free from infirmity and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:37:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 277 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220171</link>
      <description>Refund sanctioned pursuant to an earlier appellate order could not be questioned merely because Revenue&#039;s appeal against that order was stated to be pending. The note records that the underlying order-in-appeal had already been dismissed by the Tribunal when the matter was considered, so the basis for disputing the refund no longer survived. On that footing, the refund was treated as free from infirmity and the Revenue challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>