<?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>2000 (8) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93827</link>
    <description>Rebate claimed under the sugar exemption notification was treated as a rebate mechanism and not as a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the notification was identical in substance to the one already considered by the Larger Bench, the same reasoning was applied, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable. The claim therefore fell outside the refund framework under Section 11B.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:58:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93827</link>
      <description>Rebate claimed under the sugar exemption notification was treated as a rebate mechanism and not as a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the notification was identical in substance to the one already considered by the Larger Bench, the same reasoning was applied, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable. The claim therefore fell outside the refund framework under Section 11B.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93827</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>