<?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 (11) TMI 9 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446</link>
    <description>Refund of duty paid twice by mistake on the same yarn was not barred by unjust enrichment where there was no evidence that the assessee had recovered the duty twice from customers. As the goods were sold at the same rate throughout the relevant period and the excess payment was a one-time inadvertent error, the burden was not shown to have been passed on. The refund claim was therefore maintainable, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (11) TMI 9 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446</link>
      <description>Refund of duty paid twice by mistake on the same yarn was not barred by unjust enrichment where there was no evidence that the assessee had recovered the duty twice from customers. As the goods were sold at the same rate throughout the relevant period and the excess payment was a one-time inadvertent error, the burden was not shown to have been passed on. The refund claim was therefore maintainable, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>