<?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>2002 (6) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51684</link>
    <description>Refund claims arising from credit of duty fall within the statutory exception in proviso (c) to Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, so the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply. The claim here arose from excess duty paid after reclassification of goods and was based on duty credit; on that footing, the refund order was treated as correctly sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:22:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (6) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51684</link>
      <description>Refund claims arising from credit of duty fall within the statutory exception in proviso (c) to Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, so the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply. The claim here arose from excess duty paid after reclassification of goods and was based on duty credit; on that footing, the refund order was treated as correctly sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>