<?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 (12) TMI 393 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335748</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for the period before September 2005 due to limitation but allowed a refund of Rs. 1,08,95,273 to the appellant, overturning the rejection based on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of scrutinizing documents to establish tax collection and deposit and clarified the circumstances under which unjust enrichment can be invoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Sep 2017 16:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 393 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335748</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim for the period before September 2005 due to limitation but allowed a refund of Rs. 1,08,95,273 to the appellant, overturning the rejection based on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of scrutinizing documents to establish tax collection and deposit and clarified the circumstances under which unjust enrichment can be invoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335748</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>