<?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 (4) TMI 491 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341521</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld that the encashed amount from the bank guarantee, representing excise duty, was subject to unjust enrichment under Section 11B. Consequently, the amount was rightfully credited to the consumer welfare fund, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465496" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 491 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341521</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld that the encashed amount from the bank guarantee, representing excise duty, was subject to unjust enrichment under Section 11B. Consequently, the amount was rightfully credited to the consumer welfare fund, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>