<?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 (2) TMI 534 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119065</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the lower authority&#039;s decision regarding the treatment of amounts obtained through Bank Guarantee enforcement in provisional assessments. It clarified that such amounts are distinct from actual duties and not subject to the unjust enrichment doctrine when refund claims are made. The decision was based on legal principles and previous tribunal rulings, leading to the rejection of the Department&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jul 2012 17:44:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156062" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 534 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119065</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal upheld the lower authority&#039;s decision regarding the treatment of amounts obtained through Bank Guarantee enforcement in provisional assessments. It clarified that such amounts are distinct from actual duties and not subject to the unjust enrichment doctrine when refund claims are made. The decision was based on legal principles and previous tribunal rulings, leading to the rejection of the Department&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>