<?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>2003 (5) TMI 305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107556</link>
    <description>Refund of extra duty and interest paid belatedly at the department&#039;s instance was not hit by unjust enrichment because the payment was made after clearance of the goods, so the duty incidence could not have been passed on to customers at that time. The refund therefore could not be denied on that ground, and the sanctioning order was restored in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:28:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=144573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (5) TMI 305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107556</link>
      <description>Refund of extra duty and interest paid belatedly at the department&#039;s instance was not hit by unjust enrichment because the payment was made after clearance of the goods, so the duty incidence could not have been passed on to customers at that time. The refund therefore could not be denied on that ground, and the sanctioning order was restored in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107556</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>