<?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>2025 (7) TMI 554 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774486</link>
    <description>Section 142(3) of the CGST Act operates as a transitional refund provision for amounts paid under the existing law, and any admissible refund is to be paid in cash subject to section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act. CVD and SAD paid after GST commenced, but relating to imports made before 01.07.2017, remained within that transitional framework because the duties were otherwise eligible as CENVAT credit under the erstwhile regime. The later payment in 2019 to regularise the advance authorisation obligation did not take the claim outside section 142(3), and unjust enrichment did not apply because the appellant had borne the incidence of duty. Cash refund was therefore admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 08:39:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=835000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 554 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774486</link>
      <description>Section 142(3) of the CGST Act operates as a transitional refund provision for amounts paid under the existing law, and any admissible refund is to be paid in cash subject to section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act. CVD and SAD paid after GST commenced, but relating to imports made before 01.07.2017, remained within that transitional framework because the duties were otherwise eligible as CENVAT credit under the erstwhile regime. The later payment in 2019 to regularise the advance authorisation obligation did not take the claim outside section 142(3), and unjust enrichment did not apply because the appellant had borne the incidence of duty. Cash refund was therefore admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>