<?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>1996 (3) TMI 295 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85419</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the refund claim was pending and subject to the amended Section 11B, which necessitated crediting the refund amount to the Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment. The decision emphasized that no refund could be granted contrary to the amended provisions, regardless of prior communications or orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 18:12:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122486" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 295 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85419</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the refund claim was pending and subject to the amended Section 11B, which necessitated crediting the refund amount to the Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment. The decision emphasized that no refund could be granted contrary to the amended provisions, regardless of prior communications or orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85419</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>