<?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>2005 (10) TMI 25 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2928</link>
    <description>Amounts paid under an assessment order that is later set aside and remanded for de novo consideration are refundable without waiting for completion of the fresh proceedings, because the original demand no longer survives. The pendency of de novo proceedings does not keep the set-aside assessment alive for refund purposes. However, the refund remains subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment, so payment can be released only after that requirement is satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 25 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2928</link>
      <description>Amounts paid under an assessment order that is later set aside and remanded for de novo consideration are refundable without waiting for completion of the fresh proceedings, because the original demand no longer survives. The pendency of de novo proceedings does not keep the set-aside assessment alive for refund purposes. However, the refund remains subject to the statutory bar of unjust enrichment, so payment can be released only after that requirement is satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2928</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>