<?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>2005 (12) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47669</link>
    <description>Refunds arising on finalisation of provisional assessment were treated as falling within the amended statutory refund regime under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, including the bar of unjust enrichment. The later amendment to Rule 9B(5) was regarded as clarificatory and consistent with that statutory position. A refund application filed after the amendment had to be examined under the amended law, so where the duty incidence had been passed on to customers, the claim could not succeed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86187" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 109 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47669</link>
      <description>Refunds arising on finalisation of provisional assessment were treated as falling within the amended statutory refund regime under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, including the bar of unjust enrichment. The later amendment to Rule 9B(5) was regarded as clarificatory and consistent with that statutory position. A refund application filed after the amendment had to be examined under the amended law, so where the duty incidence had been passed on to customers, the claim could not succeed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>