<?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>2003 (8) TMI 96 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52039</link>
    <description>Refund under Section 11B was held unavailable where clearances were made on final prices and the record contained no price list, declaration, or intimation showing that prices were provisional or subject to revision. In the absence of a formal provisional assessment or departmental awareness of unsettled pricing, the limitation period applied and the refund claims were time-barred. A chartered accountant&#039;s certificate alone was insufficient to establish that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and the assessee failed to meet that burden. The refund claim was therefore not sustainable, and the original rejection was restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90517" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 96 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52039</link>
      <description>Refund under Section 11B was held unavailable where clearances were made on final prices and the record contained no price list, declaration, or intimation showing that prices were provisional or subject to revision. In the absence of a formal provisional assessment or departmental awareness of unsettled pricing, the limitation period applied and the refund claims were time-barred. A chartered accountant&#039;s certificate alone was insufficient to establish that the duty incidence had not been passed on, and the assessee failed to meet that burden. The refund claim was therefore not sustainable, and the original rejection was restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>