<?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 945 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246723</link>
    <description>The appellate authority dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and cross-objection in a case concerning unjust enrichment. The Department alleged that duty had been passed on to the customer, leading to unjust enrichment. However, the authority found no specific evidence supporting this claim, emphasizing that duty passed on should only be considered when collected against final bills, not based on invoices or duty paid during goods clearance. The appellant successfully demonstrated that reimbursement from customers was due to price variations, refuting the unjust enrichment allegation. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and clarified the interpretation of duty passed on in relation to final bills and invoices.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:07:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 945 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246723</link>
      <description>The appellate authority dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal and cross-objection in a case concerning unjust enrichment. The Department alleged that duty had been passed on to the customer, leading to unjust enrichment. However, the authority found no specific evidence supporting this claim, emphasizing that duty passed on should only be considered when collected against final bills, not based on invoices or duty paid during goods clearance. The appellant successfully demonstrated that reimbursement from customers was due to price variations, refuting the unjust enrichment allegation. The judgment highlighted the importance of concrete evidence and clarified the interpretation of duty passed on in relation to final bills and invoices.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>