<?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>2022 (11) TMI 452 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430028</link>
    <description>An unutilised balance in the personal ledger account was treated as an advance deposit and not as duty until appropriated against clearances. On that basis, the Tribunal held that refund of the unspent PLA balance was not governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the limitation period and unjust enrichment requirements under that provision did not apply. The refund was therefore allowable under the account-current procedure rather than the duty-refund mechanism.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2022 13:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695401" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 452 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430028</link>
      <description>An unutilised balance in the personal ledger account was treated as an advance deposit and not as duty until appropriated against clearances. On that basis, the Tribunal held that refund of the unspent PLA balance was not governed by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so the limitation period and unjust enrichment requirements under that provision did not apply. The refund was therefore allowable under the account-current procedure rather than the duty-refund mechanism.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=430028</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>