<?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>2011 (3) TMI 306 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204396</link>
    <description>Refund arising from excess duty paid on finalization of provisional assessment is not barred by unjust enrichment. The Court distinguished a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from a refund consequential to finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and treated the latter as outside the unjust enrichment bar. On that basis, the refund claim was held maintainable and the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 306 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204396</link>
      <description>Refund arising from excess duty paid on finalization of provisional assessment is not barred by unjust enrichment. The Court distinguished a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 from a refund consequential to finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and treated the latter as outside the unjust enrichment bar. On that basis, the refund claim was held maintainable and the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>