<?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 (7) TMI 1324 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193263</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal on the limitation aspect, holding that the initial refund application was within the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal on the doctrine of unjust enrichment, determining that the duty had not been passed on to buyers and was borne by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Aug 2017 18:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482118" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1324 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193263</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal on the limitation aspect, holding that the initial refund application was within the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Additionally, the Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal on the doctrine of unjust enrichment, determining that the duty had not been passed on to buyers and was borne by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were disposed of in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>