<?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>2009 (6) TMI 355 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75449</link>
    <description>A refund claim for CVD can be rejected where unjust enrichment is not rebutted by reliable evidence. A distress sale, by itself, does not prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer. A Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate is insufficient if it is unsupported by disclosed accounting records or accounting principles. On these facts, the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment remained unrebutted and the refund was rightly denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=113714" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 355 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75449</link>
      <description>A refund claim for CVD can be rejected where unjust enrichment is not rebutted by reliable evidence. A distress sale, by itself, does not prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyer. A Chartered Accountant&#039;s certificate is insufficient if it is unsupported by disclosed accounting records or accounting principles. On these facts, the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment remained unrebutted and the refund was rightly denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>