Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - appellant have ...

Central Excise

October 19, 2015

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - appellant have booked excess duty paid under the head of expenditure in the profit and loss account - Adjudicating authority directed to verify the revised balance sheet - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - appellant have ...

Central Excise

October 19, 2015

You may also like:

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - merely because the Excise duty is booked as expenditure in Profit & Loss account, it cannot be said the incidence of duty has been passed on - 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 - 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.

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Simply stating that the goods were sold at a loss does not establish that the duty incidence was not passed - No refund - AT

Refund - when the iron ore was exported on payment of duty on FOB value, the refund of excess customs duty paid does not attract bar of unjust enrichment - refund allowed.

Refund of excess duty paid on actual consumption of bunkers on the vessel during coastal trade - Unjust enrichment - Refund allowed - AT

Refund of excess duty paid - Debit / Credit Note - unjust enrichment - purchaser reversed the credit - Refund allowed - AT

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...

Denial of refund claim - unjust enrichment - There is no provision in the Central Excise law that the state government authorities would be are outside of the principles...

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - When the provisions of Central Excise are not applicable in that case bar of unjust enrichment is also not applicable - AT

Quick Updates: