<?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 1214 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209275</link>
    <description>Amounts recovered by encashment of a bank guarantee during provisional assessment are to be adjusted on finalisation of assessment under Rule 9(B)(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and do not amount to a refund claim requiring an application in the prescribed form under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Where the assessee succeeds in appeal and the duty finally assessed is lower than the duty provisionally paid, refund is to be granted on a simple request. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable to this provisional assessment regime, and coercive recovery by encashment during the pendency of the appeal was contrary to Board instructions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 1214 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209275</link>
      <description>Amounts recovered by encashment of a bank guarantee during provisional assessment are to be adjusted on finalisation of assessment under Rule 9(B)(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and do not amount to a refund claim requiring an application in the prescribed form under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Where the assessee succeeds in appeal and the duty finally assessed is lower than the duty provisionally paid, refund is to be granted on a simple request. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable to this provisional assessment regime, and coercive recovery by encashment during the pendency of the appeal was contrary to Board instructions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>