<?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>2015 (4) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258396</link>
    <description>The Hon&#039;ble Apex Court ruled that barge charges were not includible in the assessable value for customs duty, ordering the refund of any duty collected on these charges with statutory interest. The Tribunal held that the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment as the selling price was less than the cost of production. The limitation period for filing refund claims was not applicable due to the protest letters filed by the appellant. The reviewing authority was restricted to issues raised in the show-cause notice. Refunds for stevedoring charges were not justified as they were not contested. The issue of contractual terms post-1998 was remanded for further examination, and provisional assessments were not considered finalized, supporting the appellant&#039;s refund claims. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed based on the principle of unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2015 09:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=381091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (4) TMI 278 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258396</link>
      <description>The Hon&#039;ble Apex Court ruled that barge charges were not includible in the assessable value for customs duty, ordering the refund of any duty collected on these charges with statutory interest. The Tribunal held that the appellant had passed the bar of unjust enrichment as the selling price was less than the cost of production. The limitation period for filing refund claims was not applicable due to the protest letters filed by the appellant. The reviewing authority was restricted to issues raised in the show-cause notice. Refunds for stevedoring charges were not justified as they were not contested. The issue of contractual terms post-1998 was remanded for further examination, and provisional assessments were not considered finalized, supporting the appellant&#039;s refund claims. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed based on the principle of unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258396</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>