<?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 (12) TMI 1171 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336526</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the Respondent was not eligible for a refund claim as the original manufacturer had not challenged the assessments. The decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, emphasizing that a customer cannot challenge the assessment of goods manufactured and cleared by a third party. The Tribunal&#039;s decision highlights the importance of adherence to legal provisions and conditions for claiming refunds under the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:15:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=452670" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1171 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336526</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the Respondent was not eligible for a refund claim as the original manufacturer had not challenged the assessments. The decision was based on established legal principles and precedents, emphasizing that a customer cannot challenge the assessment of goods manufactured and cleared by a third party. The Tribunal&#039;s decision highlights the importance of adherence to legal provisions and conditions for claiming refunds under the Central Excise Act, 1944.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>