<?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>2003 (6) TMI 2 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99</link>
    <description>Service tax collected on leased circuits during a period when no service tax was leviable was treated as an erroneous collection under an inapplicable levy, so the refund claim remained maintainable. The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not bar refund of amounts paid under a levy that was not in force, and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable to the service tax facts. The rejection of refund was therefore incorrect, and refund to the assessee was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2017 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39563" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 2 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99</link>
      <description>Service tax collected on leased circuits during a period when no service tax was leviable was treated as an erroneous collection under an inapplicable levy, so the refund claim remained maintainable. The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not bar refund of amounts paid under a levy that was not in force, and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable to the service tax facts. The rejection of refund was therefore incorrect, and refund to the assessee was directed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>