<?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>2006 (4) TMI 280 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117831</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversing the lower authorities&#039; decisions, and directed the original authority to refund Rs. 10 crores to the appellants from the Consumer Welfare Fund. It concluded that the appellants had sufficiently demonstrated, through Balance Sheets and auditor certificates, that they had not passed on the duty burden to consumers, thereby negating the application of the unjust enrichment doctrine.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 280 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117831</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, reversing the lower authorities&#039; decisions, and directed the original authority to refund Rs. 10 crores to the appellants from the Consumer Welfare Fund. It concluded that the appellants had sufficiently demonstrated, through Balance Sheets and auditor certificates, that they had not passed on the duty burden to consumers, thereby negating the application of the unjust enrichment doctrine.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117831</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>