<?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>2004 (7) TMI 140 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53002</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to the refund claim of customs duty on imported capital goods. The appellants were granted a cash refund of the duty, with directions for processing by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs within three months. The previous decision crediting the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on unjust enrichment was overturned, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Oct 2010 10:04:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=91479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 140 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53002</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to the refund claim of customs duty on imported capital goods. The appellants were granted a cash refund of the duty, with directions for processing by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs within three months. The previous decision crediting the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund based on unjust enrichment was overturned, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>