<?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>2005 (9) TMI 9 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361</link>
    <description>Excise duty paid on exempted pipes used for supplying water fit for human consumption was refundable because the exemption conditions were satisfied by the certificates produced. The documentary record, including invoices, ledger entries, chartered accountant certification and affidavit, showed that the appellants, not the municipal corporation, bore the duty burden, so the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. The contractual allocation of duty to the contractor supported that conclusion, and the manufacturer&#039;s failure to claim the exemption did not defeat the refund claim of the person who actually paid the duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 9 - CESTAT, Bangalore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361</link>
      <description>Excise duty paid on exempted pipes used for supplying water fit for human consumption was refundable because the exemption conditions were satisfied by the certificates produced. The documentary record, including invoices, ledger entries, chartered accountant certification and affidavit, showed that the appellants, not the municipal corporation, bore the duty burden, so the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. The contractual allocation of duty to the contractor supported that conclusion, and the manufacturer&#039;s failure to claim the exemption did not defeat the refund claim of the person who actually paid the duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>