<?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>2008 (3) TMI 207 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30604</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal overturned the rejection of a refund claim based on the unjust enrichment doctrine. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the balance sheet entries and the chartered accountant&#039;s certificate demonstrated that the burden had not been passed on to buyers. The tribunal highlighted the importance of audited balance sheets as evidence and ruled that the appellant had provided sufficient proof to establish non-passing of burden, leading to the allowance of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69259" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 207 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30604</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal overturned the rejection of a refund claim based on the unjust enrichment doctrine. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the balance sheet entries and the chartered accountant&#039;s certificate demonstrated that the burden had not been passed on to buyers. The tribunal highlighted the importance of audited balance sheets as evidence and ruled that the appellant had provided sufficient proof to establish non-passing of burden, leading to the allowance of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30604</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>