<?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>2000 (4) TMI 40 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45427</link>
    <description>The doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act applies to imported raw material even where it is captively consumed in the manufacture of the final product and not sold. A three-Judge Supreme Court ruling on the point made the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view unsustainable, so the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside. The question whether the duty incidence had in fact been passed on was not decided and was left for determination on remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:57:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 40 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45427</link>
      <description>The doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act applies to imported raw material even where it is captively consumed in the manufacture of the final product and not sold. A three-Judge Supreme Court ruling on the point made the Tribunal&#039;s contrary view unsustainable, so the Tribunal&#039;s order was set aside. The question whether the duty incidence had in fact been passed on was not decided and was left for determination on remand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>