<?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>1997 (1) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44759</link>
    <description>Refund claims arising after withdrawal of a duty demand must be examined under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the applicant must establish that the duty burden was not passed on to another person. The pending refund application was required to be considered on that basis, including compliance with the affidavit requirement recognised in Mafatlal Industries. The direction for immediate refund was therefore set aside, and the claim was left to be decided in accordance with the law governing unjust enrichment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2010 15:54:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 103 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44759</link>
      <description>Refund claims arising after withdrawal of a duty demand must be examined under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, and the applicant must establish that the duty burden was not passed on to another person. The pending refund application was required to be considered on that basis, including compliance with the affidavit requirement recognised in Mafatlal Industries. The direction for immediate refund was therefore set aside, and the claim was left to be decided in accordance with the law governing unjust enrichment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>