<?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 (9) TMI 864 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348107</link>
    <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s refund claim was not time-barred as the initial claim was filed within the stipulated time. However, regarding unjust enrichment, it noted the need for proper verification of documents to determine if the credit note effect was correctly adjusted. The Tribunal set aside the decision, remanding the matter for a fresh decision based on these observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 864 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348107</link>
      <description>The Tribunal found that the appellant&#039;s refund claim was not time-barred as the initial claim was filed within the stipulated time. However, regarding unjust enrichment, it noted the need for proper verification of documents to determine if the credit note effect was correctly adjusted. The Tribunal set aside the decision, remanding the matter for a fresh decision based on these observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348107</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>