Refund claim rejected – Unjust enrichment - the appellant’s have ...

Central Excise

December 6, 2013

Refund claim rejected – Unjust enrichment - the appellant’s have not recovered the amounts of duties from their customers so as to attract the unjust enrichment principles - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Refund claim rejected – Unjust enrichment - the appellant’s have ...

Central Excise

December 6, 2013

You may also like:

Refund – unjust enrichment – Merely because the interest amount was not shown as recoverable amount from the customers, clause of unjust enrichment cannot be attracted - AT

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid twice - e appellants are entitled for refund claim for duty paid on Ethanol - unjust enrichment is not applicable - AT

Refund Claim - unjust enrichment - As the entire amount has been recovered from the ultimate buyers including the duty element, unjust enrichment is attracted.

Refund claim hit by bar of unjust enrichment or not - sale through depot - there is no evidence on record that the appellant subsequently recovered the amount from their...

Refund - principles of unjust enrichment - the unjust enrichment is not applicable even when the refund amount is claimed as expenses in the Profit and Loss Account.

Refund claim - Cess - unjust enrichment - The amount realized from the foreign buyer was only FOB value - the refund of cess is not hit by unjust enrichment

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Onus to prove - service tax which has been recovered from the customer, who has taken cenvat credit of the said service tax...

Refund of duty - unjust enrichment - Crying fire is of no avail if one cannot show even a streak of smoke - department failed to prove its case of unjust enrichment -...

Unjust enrichment - refund claim - bar of unjust enrichment not applicable to imported capital goods used captively by the importer - refund cannot be denied.

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Merely because it was shown as expenditure, the department cannot contend that pre-deposit made by appellant is hit by unjust...

Quick Updates: