<?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>2018 (2) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354739</link>
    <description>Refunds arising from provisional assessment are governed by the law in force when the provisional assessment was made, so a later-inserted unjust enrichment condition under Section 18 of the Customs Act cannot be applied retrospectively. For provisional assessments made before 13.07.2006, the refund claim could not be denied on that ground. An accounting entry showing the amount as receivable from Customs and under loans and advances was treated as relevant evidence that duty incidence had not been passed on, although the refund claim required fresh verification to confirm that the receivable entry covered the present claim. The matter was therefore remanded for reconsideration and a fresh order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Mar 2018 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 160 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354739</link>
      <description>Refunds arising from provisional assessment are governed by the law in force when the provisional assessment was made, so a later-inserted unjust enrichment condition under Section 18 of the Customs Act cannot be applied retrospectively. For provisional assessments made before 13.07.2006, the refund claim could not be denied on that ground. An accounting entry showing the amount as receivable from Customs and under loans and advances was treated as relevant evidence that duty incidence had not been passed on, although the refund claim required fresh verification to confirm that the receivable entry covered the present claim. The matter was therefore remanded for reconsideration and a fresh order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>