<?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>2005 (10) TMI 127 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54610</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing the appellants&#039; failure to demonstrate non-recovery of establishment charges from customers. The Tribunal stressed the importance of documentary evidence and accounting transparency to prove no unjust enrichment, ultimately affirming the adjudication order due to insufficient substantiation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 127 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54610</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing the appellants&#039; failure to demonstrate non-recovery of establishment charges from customers. The Tribunal stressed the importance of documentary evidence and accounting transparency to prove no unjust enrichment, ultimately affirming the adjudication order due to insufficient substantiation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>