<?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 (7) TMI 1141 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PUNE-II</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155809</link>
    <description>The appellate authority allowed the appeal, setting aside the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order and granting the refund with consequential relief. The decision was based on findings that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable since the goods were exported, procedural fairness was compromised, and evidence and case laws supported the appellant&#039;s claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2013 18:22:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=172836" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 1141 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PUNE-II</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155809</link>
      <description>The appellate authority allowed the appeal, setting aside the Assistant Commissioner&#039;s order and granting the refund with consequential relief. The decision was based on findings that the principle of unjust enrichment was not applicable since the goods were exported, procedural fairness was compromised, and evidence and case laws supported the appellant&#039;s claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>