<?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>2010 (9) TMI 1007 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170113</link>
    <description>An independent refund claim filed after finalisation of provisional assessment under the compounded levy scheme is governed by section 11B, so the claimant cannot avoid the statutory bar of unjust enrichment. Where the assessee admits that duty was included in processing charges and not shown separately in invoices, the factual burden-shifting to buyers is established. In that situation, unjust enrichment applies and the refund is not permissible. The text distinguishes a refund arising on assessment finalisation from a later standalone refund application, and confirms that passing on the duty incidence defeats the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 May 2015 17:17:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1007 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170113</link>
      <description>An independent refund claim filed after finalisation of provisional assessment under the compounded levy scheme is governed by section 11B, so the claimant cannot avoid the statutory bar of unjust enrichment. Where the assessee admits that duty was included in processing charges and not shown separately in invoices, the factual burden-shifting to buyers is established. In that situation, unjust enrichment applies and the refund is not permissible. The text distinguishes a refund arising on assessment finalisation from a later standalone refund application, and confirms that passing on the duty incidence defeats the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170113</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>