<?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>2013 (10) TMI 1107 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238652</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the order sanctioning the refund of duty to the respondent, upholding the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal centered on the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment concerning discrepancies in the balance sheets for specific years. The Tribunal found that the refund amount had been recovered through a bank guarantee and that the Revenue failed to provide evidence to challenge the refund. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities&#039; findings, concluding that the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked merit. The respondent&#039;s Cross Objection was also disposed of accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 17:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=333575" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 1107 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238652</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal against the order sanctioning the refund of duty to the respondent, upholding the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal centered on the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment concerning discrepancies in the balance sheets for specific years. The Tribunal found that the refund amount had been recovered through a bank guarantee and that the Revenue failed to provide evidence to challenge the refund. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities&#039; findings, concluding that the Revenue&#039;s appeal lacked merit. The respondent&#039;s Cross Objection was also disposed of accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=238652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>