<?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 (4) TMI 442 - CESTAT,  KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113005</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants had not passed on the duty burden to buyers or received a subsidy to offset the excess duty burden. The matter was remanded for verification of cost calculations, and the refund was to be sanctioned and paid accordingly. The Tribunal did not address the unjust enrichment principle&#039;s applicability to customs refunds from provisional assessments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 12:29:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 442 - CESTAT,  KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113005</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants had not passed on the duty burden to buyers or received a subsidy to offset the excess duty burden. The matter was remanded for verification of cost calculations, and the refund was to be sanctioned and paid accordingly. The Tribunal did not address the unjust enrichment principle&#039;s applicability to customs refunds from provisional assessments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113005</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>