<?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>2000 (2) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49759</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order granting a refund to the respondents under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It found that the respondents had sufficiently demonstrated that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers through invoices showing composite prices without a separate duty indication. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the refund order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:08:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88239" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49759</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order granting a refund to the respondents under Sec. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It found that the respondents had sufficiently demonstrated that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers through invoices showing composite prices without a separate duty indication. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the refund order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>