Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - barring an amount of ₹ ...

Claim Denied: Appellant Cannot Recover Rs. 3 Lakhs Due to Unjust Enrichment Doctrine, Already Recovered from Customers.

November 13, 2015

Case Laws Service Tax AT

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - barring an amount of ₹ 3 lakhs, the appellant themselves were admitting that the remaining amount has been recovered from their customers. Even the amount of ₹ 3 lakhs which according to them has been paid by from their own resources cannot be considered for refund as the doctrine of unjust enrichment would be applicable at this stage - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - barring an amount of ₹ ...

Claim Denied: Appellant Cannot Recover Rs. 3 Lakhs Due to Unjust Enrichment Doctrine, Already Recovered from Customers.

November 13, 2015

Case Laws Service Tax AT

You may also like:

The CESTAT examined the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for refund claims. It held that Rule 6(3) of the CCR...

The appellant filed bills of entry claiming exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus, which was denied during re-assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) rectified...

Refund – doctrine of unjust enrichment would not apply to fine and penalty - AT

Pre deposit made by VODAFONE shall not be subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment

Addition of fixed deposits and interest thereon in wife's name was deleted as the Revenue could not controvert that the deposits belonged to the assessee's wife from her...

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 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

Refund claim u/s 142(3) of CGST Act, 2017 read with Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1994 was partially allowed. Refund of Rs. 20,52,143/- and Rs. 2,19,004/- granted,...

Contravention of Sections 8(1) and 9(1)(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - receiving foreign exchange payments in 1996-97 through fake export documents...

Imported material diverted to unit other than permitted unit, resulting in contravention of import-export policy provisions. Goods held liable for confiscation u/s 111...

The NFRA held the Engagement Partner (EP) and Engagement Quality Control Reviewer (EQCR) guilty of professional misconduct u/ss 132(4), 22 of the Companies Act 2013 and...

Refund - Doctrine of unjust enrichment - It is on record that the amounts were deducted from their bills and the client had forced the Appellant to make the remittance...

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 claims – unjust enrichment – service tax paid under protest – refund allowed - AT

The case involved a violation of the FEMA Act due to accepting and placing bets on cricket matches for clients. The appellant was linked to the raided premises where...

Quick Updates: