<?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 (9) TMI 460 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263792</link>
    <description>The Tribunal affirmed the decision to allow discount deductions if known at the time of removal and passed on to buyers. It held that unjust enrichment does not apply if excess duty is refunded to customers. The case was remanded for verification of documentary evidence to confirm the passing of discounts and refund quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2015 08:20:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396536" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 460 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263792</link>
      <description>The Tribunal affirmed the decision to allow discount deductions if known at the time of removal and passed on to buyers. It held that unjust enrichment does not apply if excess duty is refunded to customers. The case was remanded for verification of documentary evidence to confirm the passing of discounts and refund quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>