<?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 (5) TMI 541 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117290</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the application of the principle of unjust enrichment but remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to provide the appellants an opportunity to prove that their refund claim was either not covered by this principle or was saved by the proviso to Section 11B(2). The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:04:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154287" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 541 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117290</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the application of the principle of unjust enrichment but remanded the case to the adjudicating authority to provide the appellants an opportunity to prove that their refund claim was either not covered by this principle or was saved by the proviso to Section 11B(2). The appeal was disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>