Refund claim - unjust enrichment - inalization of provisional ...

Customs

December 20, 2019

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - inalization of provisional assessment - Merely because those applications for claim of refund were made prior to 13.07.2006, it cannot be said that, the import of sub-section (5) of Section 18 has become redundant especially in the context of unjust enrichment theory

View Source

← Previous Next →

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - inalization of provisional ...

Customs

December 20, 2019

You may also like:

Refund claim - finalization of provisional assessment - unjust enrichment - captive consumption - even in respect of captive consumption, unjust enrichment provision is...

Denial of refund claim - Finalization of provisional assessment - prior to the amendment i.e. 13-7-2006, this doctrine of unjust enrichment was not attracted to refund...

Refund claim - Provisional assessment - Unjust enrichment - claim of refund was not subjected to the condition which was brought in by way of amendment for the first...

Denial of refund claim - unjust enrichment clause shall not apply for finalization of the provisional assessment for the cases prior to 13.7.2006 - AT

Finalization of provisional assessment - principles of unjust enrichment are not applicable to this refund claim. - 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.

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

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: