https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172191 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) as they did not pay the required price, leading to unjust enrichment. The court rejected the appellant's argument that reimbursement should be interpreted as a subsidy. Additionally, the doctrine of estoppel by conduct did not apply as the appellant had agreed to refund any excess payment, and there was no precise representation inducing reliance. The High Court's judgment dismissing the appeal was upheld. en-us Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Aug 2015 17:27:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172191 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to reimbursement under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS) as they did not pay the required price, leading to unjust enrichment. The court rejected the appellant's argument that reimbursement should be interpreted as a subsidy. Additionally, the doctrine of estoppel by conduct did not apply as the appellant had agreed to refund any excess payment, and there was no precise representation inducing reliance. The High Court's judgment dismissing the appeal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172191