<?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 (6) TMI 630 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361803</link>
    <description>An exemption condition under Notification No. 06/2006-CE was satisfied where the District Collector&#039;s certificate was produced after clearance, because the notification did not require contemporaneous possession of the certificate. A letter asserting entitlement to exemption and seeking refund was treated as a protest letter, so duty paid under protest was not barred by the normal limitation period for refund. Unjust enrichment was also not attracted because the contract rate was found to be inclusive of taxes and the excise duty element was not separately recovered from buyers. The refund was therefore admissible on all three grounds.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jun 2018 07:35:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523567" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 630 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361803</link>
      <description>An exemption condition under Notification No. 06/2006-CE was satisfied where the District Collector&#039;s certificate was produced after clearance, because the notification did not require contemporaneous possession of the certificate. A letter asserting entitlement to exemption and seeking refund was treated as a protest letter, so duty paid under protest was not barred by the normal limitation period for refund. Unjust enrichment was also not attracted because the contract rate was found to be inclusive of taxes and the excise duty element was not separately recovered from buyers. The refund was therefore admissible on all three grounds.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>