<?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 (11) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253297</link>
    <description>Refund of duty was sustained because the record cumulatively showed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to buyers. The authority relied on comparative sale price statements, post-import sale invoices showing lower prices, excise certificates, end-use evidence, balance sheet entries, bills of entry, high seas sale declarations, and a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate to conclude that the imported spin finish oil was insignificant in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn and did not form part of the sale price. The appellate order did not displace those findings or identify any perversity in the original decision, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable and the refund remained payable to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:10:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253297</link>
      <description>Refund of duty was sustained because the record cumulatively showed that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to buyers. The authority relied on comparative sale price statements, post-import sale invoices showing lower prices, excise certificates, end-use evidence, balance sheet entries, bills of entry, high seas sale declarations, and a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate to conclude that the imported spin finish oil was insignificant in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn and did not form part of the sale price. The appellate order did not displace those findings or identify any perversity in the original decision, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable and the refund remained payable to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>