<?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>1997 (10) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87422</link>
    <description>Duty paid under protest and duly acknowledged is protected from the ordinary six-month refund limitation under Section 11B and Rule 233B, so the refund claim was not time-barred. However, final refund entitlement still required a fresh determination on unjust enrichment in light of the governing Supreme Court principle, with the lower authorities directed to examine whether the incidence of duty had been passed on after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:05:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 149 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87422</link>
      <description>Duty paid under protest and duly acknowledged is protected from the ordinary six-month refund limitation under Section 11B and Rule 233B, so the refund claim was not time-barred. However, final refund entitlement still required a fresh determination on unjust enrichment in light of the governing Supreme Court principle, with the lower authorities directed to examine whether the incidence of duty had been passed on after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87422</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>