<?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 (11) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89234</link>
    <description>Refund of excise duty is barred where the claimant has passed the duty burden on to another person, because Section 11B allows refund only if the incidence has not been transferred. As the duty element had been recovered from the Electricity Board through advance payments, the appellants did not bear the burden themselves and the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied. The refund claim was therefore not admissible and was rightly rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:44:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89234</link>
      <description>Refund of excise duty is barred where the claimant has passed the duty burden on to another person, because Section 11B allows refund only if the incidence has not been transferred. As the duty element had been recovered from the Electricity Board through advance payments, the appellants did not bear the burden themselves and the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied. The refund claim was therefore not admissible and was rightly rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>