<?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>2010 (4) TMI 625 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201354</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that rejecting the refund application would result in unjust enrichment of the State since the duty was paid erroneously. The court emphasized that the State should not benefit unjustly and allowed the refund application despite being filed beyond the limitation period. The court answered the main question in favor of the assessee, rendering other related questions moot.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 13:01:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 625 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201354</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that rejecting the refund application would result in unjust enrichment of the State since the duty was paid erroneously. The court emphasized that the State should not benefit unjustly and allowed the refund application despite being filed beyond the limitation period. The court answered the main question in favor of the assessee, rendering other related questions moot.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201354</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>