<?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 (5) TMI 215 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31648</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were entitled to a refund of the excise duty amount. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not unjustly enriched as the duty had been paid, and the supplier did not claim any refund. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant was within their rights to take back the credit amount that was wrongly reversed. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70294" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 215 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31648</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they were entitled to a refund of the excise duty amount. The Tribunal found that the appellant was not unjustly enriched as the duty had been paid, and the supplier did not claim any refund. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant was within their rights to take back the credit amount that was wrongly reversed. Consequently, the appeal by the revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>