<?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>2017 (2) TMI 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338675</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of Insulated Wires and Cables, in a dispute over duty liability under an exemption notification. The Tribunal held that duty recovery, if exemption did not apply, should be from the buyer based on the Concessional Duty Rules, not the supplier. The decision was supported by relevant judgments, leading to the appeal&#039;s success.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=458035" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338675</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturer of Insulated Wires and Cables, in a dispute over duty liability under an exemption notification. The Tribunal held that duty recovery, if exemption did not apply, should be from the buyer based on the Concessional Duty Rules, not the supplier. The decision was supported by relevant judgments, leading to the appeal&#039;s success.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>