<?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>2008 (5) TMI 468 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123493</link>
    <description>The case involved a dispute over whether refunds of customs duty from provisional assessments prior to the 2006 amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act are subject to unjust enrichment principles. The Tribunal noted conflicting views from previous decisions and referred the issue to a Larger Bench for resolution. The decision emphasized the need for clarity on the application of unjust enrichment to customs duty refunds, seeking uniformity in approach.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:05:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160459" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 468 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123493</link>
      <description>The case involved a dispute over whether refunds of customs duty from provisional assessments prior to the 2006 amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act are subject to unjust enrichment principles. The Tribunal noted conflicting views from previous decisions and referred the issue to a Larger Bench for resolution. The decision emphasized the need for clarity on the application of unjust enrichment to customs duty refunds, seeking uniformity in approach.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>