<?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>2016 (1) TMI 292 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270500</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the refund claim of an SSI unit, holding that charges for optional training not linked to manufacturing or marketing should not be included in the assessable value under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal remanded the case to determine if the appellant proved no unjust enrichment, citing precedents like Tata Motors Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 16:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412354" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 292 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270500</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the refund claim of an SSI unit, holding that charges for optional training not linked to manufacturing or marketing should not be included in the assessable value under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal remanded the case to determine if the appellant proved no unjust enrichment, citing precedents like Tata Motors Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>