Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (3) TMI 735

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....N. Kumar, J.]. - This is an appeal by the revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has held that the assessee is entitled to refund. The assessee by an arithmetical mistake paid the highest amount of duty as per purchase order dated 5-2-2002 of M/s. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. The price of the Unit at Lot-3a is Rs. 23,23,240/- whereas the price of the Uni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;The Tribunal relying on the Judgment of the coordinate Bench in CC, Cochin v. Rajesh Chemicals reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 64 (Tribunal, Bangalore), held that where the excess payment of duty was made due to arithmetical error it cannot be said to be considered as duty and the same is also not hit by the provisions of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal also relied on a Judgment of the Division Ben....