<?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>2015 (2) TMI 554 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256554</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining their entitlement to a refund of excess paid CVD. The decision set aside the lower appellate authority&#039;s ruling, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of unconditional exemption notifications and previous judgments in similar cases to support the appellant&#039;s claim. The judgment highlighted the necessity of challenging assessments for refund claims in cases involving unconditional exemptions. The decision also addressed the challenge to a previous judgment by the Revenue, ultimately granting the appellant the refund subject to verification of unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2015 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 554 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256554</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining their entitlement to a refund of excess paid CVD. The decision set aside the lower appellate authority&#039;s ruling, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of unconditional exemption notifications and previous judgments in similar cases to support the appellant&#039;s claim. The judgment highlighted the necessity of challenging assessments for refund claims in cases involving unconditional exemptions. The decision also addressed the challenge to a previous judgment by the Revenue, ultimately granting the appellant the refund subject to verification of unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>