1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Appeal allowed on second refund claim due to no unjust enrichment, directing reexamination of first claim.</h1> The appeal was allowed regarding the second refund claim as the tribunal found no unjust enrichment since the higher duty could not be passed on to ... Once there is a price variation clause, the assessments should be deemed to be provisional. This point has to be examined in the light of the agreement between appellant and the buyers - issue is remanded to the Original authority to decide the claim of refund in view of agreement produced – in respect of second claim for refund, since price of goods received only at the later date after reducing the original rate, question of applicability of unjust enrichment doesn’t arise Issues involved: Refund claims rejection based on time bar and unjust enrichment.Analysis:Issue 1: Refund claim rejected on account of time barThe appeal was filed against the rejection of two refund claims by the assessee. The first claim was rejected due to being filed beyond the one-year period, resulting in it being hit by time bar. The appellant argued that the claim should be considered provisional due to a price variation clause in the agreement with the buyer. However, the agreement was not found in the records. The tribunal remanded the matter to the Original authority to examine the agreement and determine if the assessments should be deemed provisional based on the clause.Issue 2: Refund claim rejected on grounds of unjust enrichmentThe second claim was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment, although the amount was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The appellant contended that there was no unjust enrichment as they received the reduced price only after the goods were received and the effectiveness was ascertained. The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that there was no opportunity to pass on the higher duty to the buyers. As a result, the appeal was allowed concerning the second claim, and it was determined that there was no unjust enrichment in this case.The tribunal directed the Original authority to reconsider the first claim, requiring the production of the agreement with the buyer and a thorough examination of the case in light of the case laws submitted by the appellant. The de novo order was to be passed within three months from the date of the tribunal's order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
