<?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>2007 (11) TMI 175 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3901</link>
    <description>Refund-linked exemption conditions under Notifications No. 4/97 and 5/98 required verification of whether the differential duty was ultimately returned to the individual taxi owners. The assessee produced later evidence, including confirmations and receipts, to show that refunds had been made after the show cause notice, but that evidence had not been examined by the Commissioner. The Tribunal therefore held that the refund claim had to be tested on fresh verification, because if payment to the ultimate beneficiaries was proved, the notification conditions would stand satisfied and the demand would not survive to that extent. The matter was remanded for re-examination of compliance and consequential penalty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43249" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 175 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3901</link>
      <description>Refund-linked exemption conditions under Notifications No. 4/97 and 5/98 required verification of whether the differential duty was ultimately returned to the individual taxi owners. The assessee produced later evidence, including confirmations and receipts, to show that refunds had been made after the show cause notice, but that evidence had not been examined by the Commissioner. The Tribunal therefore held that the refund claim had to be tested on fresh verification, because if payment to the ultimate beneficiaries was proved, the notification conditions would stand satisfied and the demand would not survive to that extent. The matter was remanded for re-examination of compliance and consequential penalty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>