<?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 (1) TMI 112 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50026</link>
    <description>Refund arising from finalisation of a provisional excise assessment was treated as outside the mischief of unjust enrichment and not barred by Section 11B where the duty had been paid provisionally under bond and the claim was filed within time after final assessment; the refund was therefore admissible. The departmental authorisation to appeal was invalid because the sanction was signed before the annexed grounds of appeal came into existence, showing that the Commissioner had not considered any existing grounds or applied an informed mind to the impugned order; the statutory requirement under Section 35B(2) was not met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:34:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88506" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (1) TMI 112 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50026</link>
      <description>Refund arising from finalisation of a provisional excise assessment was treated as outside the mischief of unjust enrichment and not barred by Section 11B where the duty had been paid provisionally under bond and the claim was filed within time after final assessment; the refund was therefore admissible. The departmental authorisation to appeal was invalid because the sanction was signed before the annexed grounds of appeal came into existence, showing that the Commissioner had not considered any existing grounds or applied an informed mind to the impugned order; the statutory requirement under Section 35B(2) was not met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50026</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>