<?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>2015 (10) TMI 1956 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266682</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the principle that unjust enrichment does not apply when goods were cleared at a higher value initially, subsequently adjusted to a lower rate post-clearance based on provisional assessments, and where the excess duty amount was not recovered from the customers. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed appropriate in this context, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2015 21:44:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=402840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 1956 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266682</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the principle that unjust enrichment does not apply when goods were cleared at a higher value initially, subsequently adjusted to a lower rate post-clearance based on provisional assessments, and where the excess duty amount was not recovered from the customers. The decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed appropriate in this context, leading to the rejection of the Revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>