<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1302 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301596</link>
    <description>The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the Tribunal held that the claim for refund of fine and penalty should be allowed in cash, rejecting the argument of unjust enrichment as raised by the Customs authorities. The impugned order was set aside, and the original authority was directed to effect cash refund to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2022 15:14:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1302 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301596</link>
      <description>The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the Tribunal held that the claim for refund of fine and penalty should be allowed in cash, rejecting the argument of unjust enrichment as raised by the Customs authorities. The impugned order was set aside, and the original authority was directed to effect cash refund to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>