<?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 (6) TMI 398 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116047</link>
    <description>Conflicting Tribunal decisions on whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund claims under the compounded levy scheme led to no final adjudication on the refund issue. The matter was directed to be placed before the Hon&#039;ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench to resolve the divergence in Tribunal views. The operative effect is that the refund question remains open pending authoritative determination by the Larger Bench.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 17:35:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153045" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 398 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116047</link>
      <description>Conflicting Tribunal decisions on whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies to refund claims under the compounded levy scheme led to no final adjudication on the refund issue. The matter was directed to be placed before the Hon&#039;ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench to resolve the divergence in Tribunal views. The operative effect is that the refund question remains open pending authoritative determination by the Larger Bench.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>