<?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 1050 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170589</link>
    <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, stating that in cases of short landing, the extra amount paid becomes a deposit, not duty, hence not subject to limitation or unjust enrichment. The revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the refund claim was deemed legally available to the respondent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:02:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=386672" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (9) TMI 1050 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170589</link>
      <description>The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, stating that in cases of short landing, the extra amount paid becomes a deposit, not duty, hence not subject to limitation or unjust enrichment. The revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected, and the refund claim was deemed legally available to the respondent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>