<?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 1065 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154970</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the refund claim of fine and penalty without crediting it to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The judge ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the refund of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, based on the interpretation of legal precedents. The decision was in favor of the respondents, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:52:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172001" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1065 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154970</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to allow the refund claim of fine and penalty without crediting it to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The judge ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to the refund of redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, based on the interpretation of legal precedents. The decision was in favor of the respondents, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154970</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>