https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754567 CESTAT Chennai allowed taxpayer's appeal against refund claim rejection. Revenue had partially sanctioned refund claims for 2008-09 (Rs.86,129/- of Rs.14,38,174/-) and another year (Rs.6,96,147/-), rejecting balance relating to excess duty on depot sales citing unjust enrichment. Revenue argued Rule 7 of CER 2002 permits excess duty refund during provisional assessment but subject to unjust enrichment principles. CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and overturning the rejection of remaining refund claims. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:52:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754567 CESTAT Chennai allowed taxpayer's appeal against refund claim rejection. Revenue had partially sanctioned refund claims for 2008-09 (Rs.86,129/- of Rs.14,38,174/-) and another year (Rs.6,96,147/-), rejecting balance relating to excess duty on depot sales citing unjust enrichment. Revenue argued Rule 7 of CER 2002 permits excess duty refund during provisional assessment but subject to unjust enrichment principles. CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and overturning the rejection of remaining refund claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754567