<?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 (3) TMI 488 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117982</link>
    <description>Amounts paid on clearance of goods were treated in the statutory records as Central Excise duty, including on gate passes, in the protest letter under Rule 233B, and in the refund application under Section 11B and Rule 173S. On that basis, the claim fell within Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the duty burden had been passed on to the buyers, the statutory bar of unjust enrichment applied, and the refund claim was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:46:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154979" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 488 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117982</link>
      <description>Amounts paid on clearance of goods were treated in the statutory records as Central Excise duty, including on gate passes, in the protest letter under Rule 233B, and in the refund application under Section 11B and Rule 173S. On that basis, the claim fell within Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Because the duty burden had been passed on to the buyers, the statutory bar of unjust enrichment applied, and the refund claim was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>