<?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 (2) TMI 1067 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176519</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the refund claim, citing unjust enrichment despite a portion being admissible. It questioned the validity of revisiting the claim after an appellate decision but allowed no recovery until pending appeals are resolved, emphasizing jurisdictional concerns. The judgment delved into legal complexities, addressing unjust enrichment, jurisdiction, and fair disposal of related appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:41:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=410279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1067 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176519</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the order rejecting the refund claim, citing unjust enrichment despite a portion being admissible. It questioned the validity of revisiting the claim after an appellate decision but allowed no recovery until pending appeals are resolved, emphasizing jurisdictional concerns. The judgment delved into legal complexities, addressing unjust enrichment, jurisdiction, and fair disposal of related appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176519</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>