<?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>2008 (2) TMI 95 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4435</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the respondents&#039; refund claim, finding evidence of unjust enrichment absent. Citing case laws, it noted duty not passed on as shown in the balance sheet. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, maintaining the refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Oct 2019 16:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 95 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4435</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the respondents&#039; refund claim, finding evidence of unjust enrichment absent. Citing case laws, it noted duty not passed on as shown in the balance sheet. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed for lack of merit, maintaining the refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>