<?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>2020 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390621</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim citing unjust enrichment. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, instructing consideration of earlier orders favoring the appellant. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been informed of these prior orders, leading to the appeal being allowed by way of remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Jan 2020 07:31:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 234 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390621</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the lower authorities&#039; rejection of the appellant&#039;s refund claim citing unjust enrichment. The case was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, instructing consideration of earlier orders favoring the appellant. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not been informed of these prior orders, leading to the appeal being allowed by way of remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>