<?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 (11) TMI 1217 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240040</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed, and the refund claim was granted as the majority concluded that the amount in question was not excise duty paid on goods cleared under an invoice, and the Department failed to prove that the amount was recovered from buyers. Therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim should be allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2026 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=336893" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1217 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240040</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed, and the refund claim was granted as the majority concluded that the amount in question was not excise duty paid on goods cleared under an invoice, and the Department failed to prove that the amount was recovered from buyers. Therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim should be allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240040</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>