<?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 (6) TMI 773 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329064</link>
    <description>Crude oil cess levied under the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 remains a special cess and does not become central excise duty merely because Central Excise procedures apply for collection and refund; accordingly, Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess were not chargeable on it. A payment made under mistake of law was treated as a deposit outside the Central Excise refund scheme, so section 11B limitation did not apply. On the facts, the incidence was not shown to have been passed on, so unjust enrichment did not bar refund. The writ petition was maintainable because the dispute concerned money collected without authority of law, and no statutory basis for interest on refund was established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 773 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329064</link>
      <description>Crude oil cess levied under the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 remains a special cess and does not become central excise duty merely because Central Excise procedures apply for collection and refund; accordingly, Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Cess were not chargeable on it. A payment made under mistake of law was treated as a deposit outside the Central Excise refund scheme, so section 11B limitation did not apply. On the facts, the incidence was not shown to have been passed on, so unjust enrichment did not bar refund. The writ petition was maintainable because the dispute concerned money collected without authority of law, and no statutory basis for interest on refund was established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>