<?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 (7) TMI 244 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54551</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund claim for Customs Duty on the imported Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer Unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment, which the appellants contested. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s reasoning and held that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment, ultimately providing consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:09:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93028" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 244 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54551</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the refund claim for Customs Duty on the imported Ethylene Oxide Sterilizer Unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially credited the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to unjust enrichment, which the appellants contested. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039;s reasoning and held that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment, ultimately providing consequential relief to the appellants.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54551</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>