<?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 (2) TMI 514 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392070</link>
    <description>Packaged cement bearing a declared retail sale price and sold below the notification threshold qualified for the concessional duty rate under the exemption entry. The fact that the supplies were made to Government bodies did not change the applicable tariff treatment once the notification conditions were satisfied. On that reasoning, the excess duty had been paid incorrectly and refund was due; the denial of refund was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603689" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 514 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392070</link>
      <description>Packaged cement bearing a declared retail sale price and sold below the notification threshold qualified for the concessional duty rate under the exemption entry. The fact that the supplies were made to Government bodies did not change the applicable tariff treatment once the notification conditions were satisfied. On that reasoning, the excess duty had been paid incorrectly and refund was due; the denial of refund was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392070</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>