<?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>2002 (12) TMI 531 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109214</link>
    <description>Passing on of duty incidence was held to be premature where refund entitlement itself depended on an unresolved classification dispute. Because the classification finding had not attained finality, the basic right to refund remained unsettled and the question of unjust enrichment could not be decided at that stage. The issue would arise only if refund entitlement was finally established. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 16:04:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (12) TMI 531 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109214</link>
      <description>Passing on of duty incidence was held to be premature where refund entitlement itself depended on an unresolved classification dispute. Because the classification finding had not attained finality, the basic right to refund remained unsettled and the question of unjust enrichment could not be decided at that stage. The issue would arise only if refund entitlement was finally established. The appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109214</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>