<?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 (8) TMI 134 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49911</link>
    <description>Refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment is not barred by unjust enrichment where the original authority, after remand, re-determined the assessable value and found duty had been paid in excess. The refund in such circumstances flows from the final assessment process, not from appellate relief, so the limitation applied to refunds stemming from appellate or remand proceedings does not govern. The refund was therefore admissible and consequential relief was available to the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:46:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 134 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49911</link>
      <description>Refund arising from finalisation of a provisional assessment is not barred by unjust enrichment where the original authority, after remand, re-determined the assessable value and found duty had been paid in excess. The refund in such circumstances flows from the final assessment process, not from appellate relief, so the limitation applied to refunds stemming from appellate or remand proceedings does not govern. The refund was therefore admissible and consequential relief was available to the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>