<?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 (7) TMI 560 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118749</link>
    <description>An erroneous refund sanctioned and paid pursuant to a final appellate order was sought to be recovered by invoking Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In such recovery proceedings, the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B was held inapplicable because the issue was recovery of a paid refund, not determination of a fresh refund entitlement. The recovery order therefore could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded on the issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 14:41:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=155746" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 560 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118749</link>
      <description>An erroneous refund sanctioned and paid pursuant to a final appellate order was sought to be recovered by invoking Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In such recovery proceedings, the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B was held inapplicable because the issue was recovery of a paid refund, not determination of a fresh refund entitlement. The recovery order therefore could not be sustained, and the assessee succeeded on the issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>