<?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 (9) TMI 778 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125068</link>
    <description>A refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment, later upheld in appeal, is not barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act merely because the duty was not paid under protest. The claim remains linked to the assessment proceedings and is therefore maintainable on limitation. However, refund entitlement is not automatic: the statutory bar of unjust enrichment still applies, so the incidence of duty must be examined by the original adjudicating authority before refund is granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:01:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=161992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 778 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125068</link>
      <description>A refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment, later upheld in appeal, is not barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act merely because the duty was not paid under protest. The claim remains linked to the assessment proceedings and is therefore maintainable on limitation. However, refund entitlement is not automatic: the statutory bar of unjust enrichment still applies, so the incidence of duty must be examined by the original adjudicating authority before refund is granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125068</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>