<?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 998 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346940</link>
    <description>The Tribunal overturned the lower authorities&#039; rejection of the refund claim for excise duty on tin containers, emphasizing the application of the res judicata principle. Despite challenges and objections raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the finality of previous adjudication up to the Supreme Court. The judgment directed the Revenue to promptly implement the order, granting consequential relief to the appellants based on the entire case history and developments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486815" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 998 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346940</link>
      <description>The Tribunal overturned the lower authorities&#039; rejection of the refund claim for excise duty on tin containers, emphasizing the application of the res judicata principle. Despite challenges and objections raised by the Revenue, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the finality of previous adjudication up to the Supreme Court. The judgment directed the Revenue to promptly implement the order, granting consequential relief to the appellants based on the entire case history and developments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>