<?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>2016 (1) TMI 420 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270628</link>
    <description>Refund of excess interest paid on customs duty was treated as arising from a mistaken rate application and therefore as a deposit rather than a regular duty component. A chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and audited balance sheet showed the amount as recoverable under deposits and advances, which was sufficient to establish that the burden had not been passed on. The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim was maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:16:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 420 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270628</link>
      <description>Refund of excess interest paid on customs duty was treated as arising from a mistaken rate application and therefore as a deposit rather than a regular duty component. A chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and audited balance sheet showed the amount as recoverable under deposits and advances, which was sufficient to establish that the burden had not been passed on. The bar of unjust enrichment did not apply, and the refund claim was maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270628</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>