<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2612 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190203</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant successfully demonstrated through evidence that the duty incidence had not been passed on. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority was directed to grant the refund claim. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2017 08:39:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=457992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2612 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190203</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant successfully demonstrated through evidence that the duty incidence had not been passed on. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority was directed to grant the refund claim. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>