<?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>1999 (7) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91921</link>
    <description>Refund of cess was barred where the assessee could not show that the incidence of cess had been borne by it. The Tribunal accepted the finding that the burden had been passed on to buyers, and no further evidence was produced to displace that conclusion. A plea that the cess had been collected illegally did not prevent application of the unjust enrichment bar. The refund claim was therefore rejected and the bar under unjust enrichment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:22:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=128982" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 172 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91921</link>
      <description>Refund of cess was barred where the assessee could not show that the incidence of cess had been borne by it. The Tribunal accepted the finding that the burden had been passed on to buyers, and no further evidence was produced to displace that conclusion. A plea that the cess had been collected illegally did not prevent application of the unjust enrichment bar. The refund claim was therefore rejected and the bar under unjust enrichment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>