<?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>2014 (2) TMI 972 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244378</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds of interest under Sec. 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal clarified that previous orders did not definitively settle the issue and referenced legal principles, including a CBEC circular and Supreme Court decisions, to support its interpretation. The tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that interest refunds under the Customs Act are not subject to unjust enrichment principles.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 06:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 972 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244378</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds of interest under Sec. 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal clarified that previous orders did not definitively settle the issue and referenced legal principles, including a CBEC circular and Supreme Court decisions, to support its interpretation. The tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that interest refunds under the Customs Act are not subject to unjust enrichment principles.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244378</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>