<?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>2018 (4) TMI 892 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358781</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals in the case concerning refund denial based on unjust enrichment in provisional assessment finalization for &#039;Aerated Water&#039; and &#039;Post Mix Canisters&#039;. The Tribunal set aside the refund denial, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund to the appellants within 60 days from the order date, along with applicable interest, as per rules. The decision emphasized that the appellants had submitted all necessary documents during finalization, and there was no concrete evidence of passing on the duty incidence to customers, leading to the rejection of the refund based on presumptions rather than evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2018 05:34:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=517265" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (4) TMI 892 - CESTAT  ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358781</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals in the case concerning refund denial based on unjust enrichment in provisional assessment finalization for &#039;Aerated Water&#039; and &#039;Post Mix Canisters&#039;. The Tribunal set aside the refund denial, directing the Adjudicating Authority to grant the refund to the appellants within 60 days from the order date, along with applicable interest, as per rules. The decision emphasized that the appellants had submitted all necessary documents during finalization, and there was no concrete evidence of passing on the duty incidence to customers, leading to the rejection of the refund based on presumptions rather than evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>