<?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 (3) TMI 208 - BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221442</link>
    <description>The Commissioner allowed the appeal by the manufacturer of Lubricant Oil and lubricating grease, ruling in favor of their eligibility for a refund due to the downward revision of the price of goods sold from the Depot. The Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, as the depot was considered a place of removal, and the appellant fulfilled all conditions for claiming the refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:04:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (3) TMI 208 - BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221442</link>
      <description>The Commissioner allowed the appeal by the manufacturer of Lubricant Oil and lubricating grease, ruling in favor of their eligibility for a refund due to the downward revision of the price of goods sold from the Depot. The Commissioner held that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, as the depot was considered a place of removal, and the appellant fulfilled all conditions for claiming the refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>