<?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>2005 (2) TMI 252 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53885</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities&#039; decision. It found that the appellant had not passed on the Customs duty paid to its customer and had not received any reimbursement, dismissing the unjust enrichment allegation under Section 11B. The judgment emphasized the significance of reviewing transaction records to establish the absence of unjust enrichment in refund claims.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 16:56:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92362" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 252 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53885</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authorities&#039; decision. It found that the appellant had not passed on the Customs duty paid to its customer and had not received any reimbursement, dismissing the unjust enrichment allegation under Section 11B. The judgment emphasized the significance of reviewing transaction records to establish the absence of unjust enrichment in refund claims.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53885</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>