<?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 569 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119448</link>
    <description>Payment of duty under protest was treated as a sufficient challenge to the Bill of Entry assessment for refund purposes, so a separate appeal against the assessment was not required. The Tribunal noted that the refund could not be rejected on a fresh appellate ground that had not formed part of the original adjudication. It also recorded that the exemption under Notification No. 29/97-Cus. had been accepted in the assessee&#039;s earlier case, and that the questions of exemption entitlement and unjust enrichment required fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:48:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156445" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 569 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119448</link>
      <description>Payment of duty under protest was treated as a sufficient challenge to the Bill of Entry assessment for refund purposes, so a separate appeal against the assessment was not required. The Tribunal noted that the refund could not be rejected on a fresh appellate ground that had not formed part of the original adjudication. It also recorded that the exemption under Notification No. 29/97-Cus. had been accepted in the assessee&#039;s earlier case, and that the questions of exemption entitlement and unjust enrichment required fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>