<?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>2012 (12) TMI 832 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219817</link>
    <description>Refund of duty paid during investigation was not hit by unjust enrichment where the assessee was clearing goods under an SSI exemption and had not recovered excise duty from buyers. On those facts, the incidence of duty was not passed on, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. The absence of a show-cause notice for appropriation further supported the refund claim, and rejection of refund on that ground was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 832 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219817</link>
      <description>Refund of duty paid during investigation was not hit by unjust enrichment where the assessee was clearing goods under an SSI exemption and had not recovered excise duty from buyers. On those facts, the incidence of duty was not passed on, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. The absence of a show-cause notice for appropriation further supported the refund claim, and rejection of refund on that ground was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>