<?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 (9) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54563</link>
    <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, duty is fixed by annual production capacity rather than actual clearances, so the scheme operates as a self-contained code. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the general refund restriction in Section 11B, including the bar of unjust enrichment, does not govern excess duty paid under this special levy mechanism because the payment cannot be linked to any specific sale or presumed to have been passed on to customers. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:41:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93040" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54563</link>
      <description>Under the compounded levy scheme, duty is fixed by annual production capacity rather than actual clearances, so the scheme operates as a self-contained code. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the general refund restriction in Section 11B, including the bar of unjust enrichment, does not govern excess duty paid under this special levy mechanism because the payment cannot be linked to any specific sale or presumed to have been passed on to customers. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54563</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>