<?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 (3) TMI 585 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108135</link>
    <description>A refund claim arising from a consequential Tribunal order was not barred by limitation merely because the duty was not paid under protest; the time-bar objection failed. However, sanction of the refund still required scrutiny of unjust enrichment under Section 11B, and the adjudicating authority had to examine that issue before granting relief. The matter was therefore remanded for reconsideration on unjust enrichment while rejecting the limitation objection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 12:38:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 585 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108135</link>
      <description>A refund claim arising from a consequential Tribunal order was not barred by limitation merely because the duty was not paid under protest; the time-bar objection failed. However, sanction of the refund still required scrutiny of unjust enrichment under Section 11B, and the adjudicating authority had to examine that issue before granting relief. The matter was therefore remanded for reconsideration on unjust enrichment while rejecting the limitation objection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>