<?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 (11) TMI 244 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35405</link>
    <description>Refund arising from provisional assessment made before 13-7-2006 was treated as outside the amended unjust enrichment bar under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal applied the position that the principle of unjust enrichment was incorporated into Section 18 only from 13-7-2006, so the refund claim for the earlier provisional assessment was not tested on whether duty incidence had been passed on. On that basis, the refund was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 244 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35405</link>
      <description>Refund arising from provisional assessment made before 13-7-2006 was treated as outside the amended unjust enrichment bar under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal applied the position that the principle of unjust enrichment was incorporated into Section 18 only from 13-7-2006, so the refund claim for the earlier provisional assessment was not tested on whether duty incidence had been passed on. On that basis, the refund was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>