<?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>2023 (3) TMI 750 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435364</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the trader&#039;s appeal for a refund of 4% Special Additional Duty despite missing the required endorsement on some invoices. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal held the trader fulfilled conditions for exemption under the notification. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed unjustified, and the appellant was found eligible for the refund. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:28:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=707986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (3) TMI 750 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435364</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the trader&#039;s appeal for a refund of 4% Special Additional Duty despite missing the required endorsement on some invoices. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal held the trader fulfilled conditions for exemption under the notification. The rejection of the refund claim was deemed unjustified, and the appellant was found eligible for the refund. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=435364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>