<?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 (8) TMI 537 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174081</link>
    <description>Duty paid under protest was held not to attract the bar of unjust enrichment, so refund claims arising from such payments could not be denied on that ground. The direction to credit the refundable amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund was therefore unsustainable, and the refunds were allowed in favour of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2015 16:23:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=399264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 537 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174081</link>
      <description>Duty paid under protest was held not to attract the bar of unjust enrichment, so refund claims arising from such payments could not be denied on that ground. The direction to credit the refundable amounts to the Consumer Welfare Fund was therefore unsustainable, and the refunds were allowed in favour of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>