<?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>High Court Rules Positive Evidence Sufficient for Excise Duty Refund Claim; Rejects Focus on Negative Evidence by Authorities.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36304</link>
    <description>Refund claim - unjust enrichment - If the burden of Excise Duty is passed on to the others, it gets reflected in the Bills and invoices. That is a positive evidence. That was produced to show that no such burden is passed off - the adjudicating and appellate authority have gone about looking for negative evidence. Clearly, the very approach is wrong - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:55:39 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:55:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Rules Positive Evidence Sufficient for Excise Duty Refund Claim; Rejects Focus on Negative Evidence by Authorities.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36304</link>
      <description>Refund claim - unjust enrichment - If the burden of Excise Duty is passed on to the others, it gets reflected in the Bills and invoices. That is a positive evidence. That was produced to show that no such burden is passed off - the adjudicating and appellate authority have gone about looking for negative evidence. Clearly, the very approach is wrong - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:55:39 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36304</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>