TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Three legal questions admitted: department appeal allowance, refund barred by unjust enrichment, provisional assessments under Rules 9B, 173B, 173CC</h1> <h3>Milton Plastics Ltd. Versus Commissioner</h3> HC admitted three substantial questions of law: whether CESTAT erred in allowing the department's appeal; whether the refund claim was barred by unjust ... - Admitted three substantial questions of law: (a) whether, on the facts, the CESTAT erred in allowing the appeal of the department; (b) whether the CESTAT erred in holding that the refund claim is hit by the 'doctrine of unjust enrichment'; and (c) whether, in law, the 'classification list dated 21-11-1986 was not approved till the passing of order dated 24-8-1989 by the Assistant Collector' and hence the assessments were 'provisional under Rule 9B, read with Rules 173B and 173CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944.' Interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (c). The core legal issues focus on correctness of CESTAT's appellate conclusion, application of the 'doctrine of unjust enrichment' to a refund claim, and the legal effect of the timing of administrative approval on the provisional nature of assessments under the specified Central Excise Rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
