Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
