<?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>2017 (9) TMI 1391 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348634</link>
    <description>Refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the imported goods were used in the assessee&#039;s hotel and were not resold. The refund amount was reflected as receivables in the books, supported by Chartered Accountant certificates and ledger entries, and no contrary material was produced to discredit that accounting treatment. On those facts, the incidence of duty was not shown to have been passed on to any customer or other person, so the refund was admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2018 17:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1391 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348634</link>
      <description>Refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the imported goods were used in the assessee&#039;s hotel and were not resold. The refund amount was reflected as receivables in the books, supported by Chartered Accountant certificates and ledger entries, and no contrary material was produced to discredit that accounting treatment. On those facts, the incidence of duty was not shown to have been passed on to any customer or other person, so the refund was admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>