<?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>2006 (2) TMI 32 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=519</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision that the refund claim was not subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment as per Section 11B(2)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Legal precedents cited affirmed this interpretation, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 32 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=519</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s decision that the refund claim was not subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment as per Section 11B(2)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Legal precedents cited affirmed this interpretation, resulting in the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>