<?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 (3) TMI 502 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339999</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a refund claim for excess duty paid at a rate of Rs. 30 per square meter on Marble blocks, citing unjust enrichment. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the rejection was dismissed as the duty rate issue had been settled in a previous order, and the rejection was legally sound. The Tribunal found the Commissioner(Appeals) had correctly upheld the original order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal on 10/02/2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Mar 2017 09:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460975" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 502 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339999</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of a refund claim for excess duty paid at a rate of Rs. 30 per square meter on Marble blocks, citing unjust enrichment. The Revenue&#039;s appeal against the rejection was dismissed as the duty rate issue had been settled in a previous order, and the rejection was legally sound. The Tribunal found the Commissioner(Appeals) had correctly upheld the original order, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal on 10/02/2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>