<?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>2004 (2) TMI 518 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111629</link>
    <description>Refund of excise duty paid under protest could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment where the binding precedent on the underlying manufacture issue remained applicable and had not been reversed by a Larger Bench. The Tribunal relied on Sinkhai Synthetics &amp; Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and held that the later reference order in Allied Photographics India Ltd. did not override that authority. On that basis, the refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment and the assessee&#039;s refund was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 13:24:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 518 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111629</link>
      <description>Refund of excise duty paid under protest could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment where the binding precedent on the underlying manufacture issue remained applicable and had not been reversed by a Larger Bench. The Tribunal relied on Sinkhai Synthetics &amp; Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and held that the later reference order in Allied Photographics India Ltd. did not override that authority. On that basis, the refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment and the assessee&#039;s refund was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>