<?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 (11) TMI 73 -  CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1226</link>
    <description>Where a refund claim is filed within the prescribed time under Section 27 of the Customs Act and is later supported by a favourable appellate order, the statutory scheme does not require a fresh refund application merely because the appeal succeeds. The earlier claim remains valid and is not barred by limitation on that ground. The refund, however, continues to be subject to scrutiny on unjust enrichment. The claims were therefore held admissible under the refund provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 73 -  CESTAT,  CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1226</link>
      <description>Where a refund claim is filed within the prescribed time under Section 27 of the Customs Act and is later supported by a favourable appellate order, the statutory scheme does not require a fresh refund application merely because the appeal succeeds. The earlier claim remains valid and is not barred by limitation on that ground. The refund, however, continues to be subject to scrutiny on unjust enrichment. The claims were therefore held admissible under the refund provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>