<?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 (8) TMI 785 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346727</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund with interest within 60 days. The decision was based on the absence of evidence showing that the duty burden was shifted to customers, satisfying the doctrine of unjust enrichment and entitling the appellant to the refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Feb 2018 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486298" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 785 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346727</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund with interest within 60 days. The decision was based on the absence of evidence showing that the duty burden was shifted to customers, satisfying the doctrine of unjust enrichment and entitling the appellant to the refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346727</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>