<?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>2001 (2) TMI 473 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95941</link>
    <description>Refund of excess excise duty was examined under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Evidence from the buyer&#039;s accounts and affidavit showed that only part of the duty element had been paid, with the balance remaining outstanding, so the presumption that the duty burden had been fully passed on was rebutted. On those facts, the refund claim was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment and was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 11:28:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 473 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95941</link>
      <description>Refund of excess excise duty was examined under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Evidence from the buyer&#039;s accounts and affidavit showed that only part of the duty element had been paid, with the balance remaining outstanding, so the presumption that the duty burden had been fully passed on was rebutted. On those facts, the refund claim was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment and was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95941</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>