<?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>2005 (3) TMI 8 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to grant a refund to the assessee in a case where duty liability was not transferred to customers and was borne by the assessee. The retrospective amendment under Section 160 of the Finance Act, 2003, supported the eligibility for the refund claim. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the order granting the refund based on findings that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 8 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision to grant a refund to the assessee in a case where duty liability was not transferred to customers and was borne by the assessee. The retrospective amendment under Section 160 of the Finance Act, 2003, supported the eligibility for the refund claim. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the order granting the refund based on findings that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>