<?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 (8) TMI 257 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54751</link>
    <description>A Board circular clarifying the treatment of scored-out M.R.P. was treated as a clarification of the existing legal position, not an amendment in law. On that basis, its effect was not limited to future cases, and the lower appellate authority was found wrong to confine it to prospective operation only. The clarification was applied to the assessee, who was held entitled to its benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 18:18:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 257 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54751</link>
      <description>A Board circular clarifying the treatment of scored-out M.R.P. was treated as a clarification of the existing legal position, not an amendment in law. On that basis, its effect was not limited to future cases, and the lower appellate authority was found wrong to confine it to prospective operation only. The clarification was applied to the assessee, who was held entitled to its benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54751</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>