<?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 (10) TMI 71 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49971</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund of Rs. 63,95,121/- and Rs. 27,112/- to the appellants. The claim for refund of Rs. 3,14,557/- was remanded for verification. The decision was based on the principle that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in cases of finalization of provisional assessment, in line with legal precedents such as the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Mafatlal Industries.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:49:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88451" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 71 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49971</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund of Rs. 63,95,121/- and Rs. 27,112/- to the appellants. The claim for refund of Rs. 3,14,557/- was remanded for verification. The decision was based on the principle that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply in cases of finalization of provisional assessment, in line with legal precedents such as the Supreme Court&#039;s ruling in Mafatlal Industries.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>