<?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>2005 (2) TMI 662 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115909</link>
    <description>Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment, where the assessment was completed before the amendment inserting the proviso to Rule 9B(5), accrued prior to the amendment and retained that character notwithstanding later filing or processing of the refund claim. The subsequent amendment did not retrospectively convert the refund into a fresh post-amendment claim, so the amended bar of unjust enrichment was inapplicable. The assessee was entitled to the refund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:11:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 662 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115909</link>
      <description>Refund arising from finalisation of provisional assessment, where the assessment was completed before the amendment inserting the proviso to Rule 9B(5), accrued prior to the amendment and retained that character notwithstanding later filing or processing of the refund claim. The subsequent amendment did not retrospectively convert the refund into a fresh post-amendment claim, so the amended bar of unjust enrichment was inapplicable. The assessee was entitled to the refund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115909</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>