<?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 56 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48788</link>
    <description>Under Section 11B, a purchaser seeking refund must file within six months from the date of purchase, because the purchaser&#039;s claim is treated as independent of the manufacturer&#039;s refund position. The statutory relaxation for duty paid under protest was held to apply only to the person who actually paid under protest, not to the purchaser. The analysis also treats unjust enrichment as an additional bar, requiring the purchaser to show that the duty burden was borne and not passed on. On this reasoning, a refund claim filed after six months was held time-barred, and the manufacturer&#039;s protest did not extend the purchaser&#039;s limitation period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 56 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48788</link>
      <description>Under Section 11B, a purchaser seeking refund must file within six months from the date of purchase, because the purchaser&#039;s claim is treated as independent of the manufacturer&#039;s refund position. The statutory relaxation for duty paid under protest was held to apply only to the person who actually paid under protest, not to the purchaser. The analysis also treats unjust enrichment as an additional bar, requiring the purchaser to show that the duty burden was borne and not passed on. On this reasoning, a refund claim filed after six months was held time-barred, and the manufacturer&#039;s protest did not extend the purchaser&#039;s limitation period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>