<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1038 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770766</link>
    <description>Refund of special additional duty was held to be admissible where TR-6 challans showed the importer&#039;s name and address, establishing that the duty payment was attributable to the appellant. The authority&#039;s objection that the duty had been paid by DHL was not accepted because the record supported the appellant&#039;s claim that it had borne the incidence of SAD. The rejection of refund was therefore set aside and refund of SAD was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822142" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1038 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770766</link>
      <description>Refund of special additional duty was held to be admissible where TR-6 challans showed the importer&#039;s name and address, establishing that the duty payment was attributable to the appellant. The authority&#039;s objection that the duty had been paid by DHL was not accepted because the record supported the appellant&#039;s claim that it had borne the incidence of SAD. The rejection of refund was therefore set aside and refund of SAD was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>