Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
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 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
