Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Permissibility of refund claims and the applicability of the unjust enrichment doctrine. The judicial view emphasizes the principles of economic and distributive justice, equity, and good conscience, as enshrined in the Constitution's Preamble and Directive Principles. The Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. clarifies that seeking a refund is not a matter of right, and a specific procedure must be followed. In the present case, the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedure, and the adjudicating authority invoked Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the refund claim is not maintainable in light of the Mafatlal decision, which upholds the unjust enrichment doctrine.
Permissibility of refund claims and the applicability of the unjust enrichment doctrine. The judicial view emphasizes the principles of economic and distributive justice, equity, and good conscience, as enshrined in the Constitution's Preamble and Directive Principles. The Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. clarifies that seeking a refund is not a matter of right, and a specific procedure must be followed. In the present case, the appellant did not follow the prescribed procedure, and the adjudicating authority invoked Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the order, dismissing the appeal and ruling that the refund claim is not maintainable in light of the Mafatlal decision, which upholds the unjust enrichment doctrine.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
