<?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>2001 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50615</link>
    <description>Refund of excess duty was admissible where duty had been paid on an invoice value higher than the agreed contract price because of an invoicing mistake. The contract price was the actual transaction value, the buyer was not liable to pay beyond that amount, and the excess duty arose only from the wrong invoice figure. On that basis, the refund claim was properly allowed and the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:17:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 149 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50615</link>
      <description>Refund of excess duty was admissible where duty had been paid on an invoice value higher than the agreed contract price because of an invoicing mistake. The contract price was the actual transaction value, the buyer was not liable to pay beyond that amount, and the excess duty arose only from the wrong invoice figure. On that basis, the refund claim was properly allowed and the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50615</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>