<?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 denied merely because Revenue asserted that an appeal against that order was pending. The Tribunal had already dismissed the appeal against the underlying order-in-appeal when the refund dispute was decided. Consequently, the basis for challenging the refund no longer survived, the refund sanction remained valid, and Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</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 denied merely because Revenue asserted that an appeal against that order was pending. The Tribunal had already dismissed the appeal against the underlying order-in-appeal when the refund dispute was decided. Consequently, the basis for challenging the refund no longer survived, the refund sanction remained valid, and Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</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>