Unjust-enrichment - Refund allowed but directed to be deposited ...

Court Corrects Error: Refund Ordered to Consumer Welfare Fund Due to Misinterpretation of Unjust Enrichment in Excise Case.

August 27, 2022

Case Laws Central Excise AT

Unjust-enrichment - Refund allowed but directed to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund of India - o the amount deposited during investigation, basing - The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that unless the deposited amount is shown in the Profit & Loss Account of the Appellant as amount receivable, doctrine of unjust enrichment would be established, is erroneous. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Unjust-enrichment - Refund allowed but directed to be deposited ...

Court Corrects Error: Refund Ordered to Consumer Welfare Fund Due to Misinterpretation of Unjust Enrichment in Excise Case.

August 27, 2022

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

HC held that petitioner was entitled to refund of IGST and Service Tax paid on ocean freight following Mohit Minerals precedent. While addressing unjust enrichment...

Principles of unjust enrichment - Refund amount ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund instead of being paid to the appellant - The Tribunal interprets...

Interest on Refund - initially the amount was credit to Consumer Welfare Fund later cash refund was allowed - interest on refund allowed. - AT

Refund claim - doctrine of unjust enrichment - The impugned order has relied on the cost accountant certificate to hold that the burden of the tax paid has been built in...

Refund - in case of export of goods, unjust enrichment is not applicable - therefore, refund is not liable to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund - AT

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Security deposit - amount not to be credited to consumer welfare fund - appellants are eligible for refund of cash security...

Show cause notice demanding interest was confirmed by the original Adjudicating Authority and settled under SVLDRS Scheme, thus refund of the confirmed amount does not...

CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed unjust enrichment in a refund claim. The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 1,23,70,024 u/s the Tribunal's order. The appellant failed to prove...

Profiteering - restaurant service - reduction in the GST rate not passed - The profiteered amount is determined as ₹ 78,41,754/- as has been computed in...

Profiteering - Till the State Consumer Welfare Funds become operational and necessary details of the State CWFs are made available to the petitioner, the petitioner is...

Profiteering - restaurant service - the Respondent had increased the base prices of different items by more than 11.16% i.e. by more than what was required to offset the...

Profiteering - restaurant services - allegation that benefit of reduction in GST rate not passed on by way of commensurate reduction in prices - contravention of section...

High Court rejected petitioner's writ petition challenging refund rejection order, observing that respondent authority had passed reasoned order after considering...

Rectification of assessment orders to correct the errors apparent on the face of record u/s 161 of DGST GST Act, 2017. - The instruction issued by the Department of...

The High Court considered the maintainability of a writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition despite the petitioner not challenging the allegedly erroneous orders. The...

Quick Updates: