<?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>2008 (3) TMI 272 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31565</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the need to assess unjust enrichment before granting a refund. The case highlighted the interplay between rectification under Section 154, time limitations of Section 27, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment in customs duty refund cases, as clarified by higher judicial precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 272 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31565</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal set aside the rejection of the refund claim, emphasizing the need to assess unjust enrichment before granting a refund. The case highlighted the interplay between rectification under Section 154, time limitations of Section 27, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment in customs duty refund cases, as clarified by higher judicial precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31565</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>