<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1035 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153667</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the refund of duty paid by the appellant, emphasizing the legal requirements for depositing dues pending appeal and the application of unjust enrichment principles in the context of duty refunds. The Tribunal found that unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund of the pre-deposit, concluding that there was no reason to deny the refund and expressing no opinion on the non-issuance of a show cause notice under Section 11A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jul 2013 16:25:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170702" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1035 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153667</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the refund of duty paid by the appellant, emphasizing the legal requirements for depositing dues pending appeal and the application of unjust enrichment principles in the context of duty refunds. The Tribunal found that unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund of the pre-deposit, concluding that there was no reason to deny the refund and expressing no opinion on the non-issuance of a show cause notice under Section 11A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153667</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>