<?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>2009 (1) TMI 273 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35280</link>
    <description>The Tribunal denied interest on a customs duty refund claim, ruling that interest should be calculated from the date when necessary documents were furnished in 2006. It upheld the principle of unjust enrichment for cases before 1991, emphasizing the importer&#039;s failure to provide proof of non-passing on of duty incidence until later years. The Tribunal rejected the importer&#039;s appeal due to delays in submitting essential documents and grounds for the refund claim, agreeing with the revenue&#039;s position on interest calculation and unjust enrichment. The judgment underscored the importance of timely submission of evidence to avoid disputes and delays in refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73876" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (1) TMI 273 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35280</link>
      <description>The Tribunal denied interest on a customs duty refund claim, ruling that interest should be calculated from the date when necessary documents were furnished in 2006. It upheld the principle of unjust enrichment for cases before 1991, emphasizing the importer&#039;s failure to provide proof of non-passing on of duty incidence until later years. The Tribunal rejected the importer&#039;s appeal due to delays in submitting essential documents and grounds for the refund claim, agreeing with the revenue&#039;s position on interest calculation and unjust enrichment. The judgment underscored the importance of timely submission of evidence to avoid disputes and delays in refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>