<?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>2000 (11) TMI 1222 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174978</link>
    <description>Refund of duty depends on proof that the duty burden was not passed on to the consumer. Applying the principle in Solar Pesticide, the Court noted that refund cannot be granted unless this factual burden is established. Because the tribunal had not determined whether the incidence of duty had been passed on, further adjudication was necessary. The matter was remitted to the tribunal for that finding, with liberty to send it further to the Assistant Collector if required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:04:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=403898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 1222 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174978</link>
      <description>Refund of duty depends on proof that the duty burden was not passed on to the consumer. Applying the principle in Solar Pesticide, the Court noted that refund cannot be granted unless this factual burden is established. Because the tribunal had not determined whether the incidence of duty had been passed on, further adjudication was necessary. The matter was remitted to the tribunal for that finding, with liberty to send it further to the Assistant Collector if required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174978</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>