<?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>2026 (1) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785092</link>
    <description>Fatty acids, gums and waxes arising incidentally during refined rice bran oil manufacture were treated as waste under settled precedent and were therefore exempt from duty; on that basis, duty paid on them could be refunded. The contrary view based on commercial identity and value was displaced by the Larger Bench ruling in the assessees&#039; own case, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The refund was also not barred by unjust enrichment because the assessees supported their claim with a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and invoices, and the department produced no contrary evidence to show that duty had been passed on. The refund relief was thus sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2026 08:45:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=879293" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 848 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785092</link>
      <description>Fatty acids, gums and waxes arising incidentally during refined rice bran oil manufacture were treated as waste under settled precedent and were therefore exempt from duty; on that basis, duty paid on them could be refunded. The contrary view based on commercial identity and value was displaced by the Larger Bench ruling in the assessees&#039; own case, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. The refund was also not barred by unjust enrichment because the assessees supported their claim with a chartered accountant&#039;s certificate and invoices, and the department produced no contrary evidence to show that duty had been passed on. The refund relief was thus sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785092</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>