<?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 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122495</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellants in a customs case concerning the treatment of deposits for provisional assessment and the application of the unjust enrichment principle in refund claims. The Tribunal found that the deposit made by the importer was refundable upon finalization of assessment and that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the refund to be sanctioned to the party instead of transferring it to the Consumer Welfare Fund.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:07:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=159480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 481 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122495</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the appellants in a customs case concerning the treatment of deposits for provisional assessment and the application of the unjust enrichment principle in refund claims. The Tribunal found that the deposit made by the importer was refundable upon finalization of assessment and that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the refund to be sanctioned to the party instead of transferring it to the Consumer Welfare Fund.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122495</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>