Appellant appeals Customs refund denial, argues timely filing and burden of proof met. Tribunal remands for evidence review.

The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs, citing limitation and failure to prove non-passing of duty incidence. The appellant argued that their appeal was not time-barred and met the burden of proof for limitation. Regarding unjust enrichment, the Tribunal found the refund claim timely filed and the burden of proof met based on evidence presented. The case was remanded for further analysis of evidence to establish duty non-passing. The appellant was granted an opportunity to provide additional documentation.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on limitation
2. Burden of proof for unjust enrichment

Refund Claim Rejection Based on Limitation:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which rejected their refund claim of &8377;1,39,98,148. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim citing limitation and failure to prove that duty incidence was not passed on. The appellant argued that their refund claim, filed within six months of receiving the Tribunal's order, was not time-barred. They contended that even though the protest against the denial of benefit was withdrawn, their appeal itself was a continuation of protest. Citing the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. case, they asserted that the burden of proof for limitation was met. The appellant also presented Chartered Accountant certificates and evidence to show that the duty incidence was not passed on to others.

Burden of Proof for Unjust Enrichment:
The Revenue argued that the refund claim should have been filed within six months from the date of the order, as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. They claimed that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that duty incidence was not passed on. The authorities below did not accept the CA certificates presented by the appellant, stating that supporting documents like balance sheets were missing. The Tribunal, after considering both sides, found that the refund claim was filed within the time limit and that the burden of proof for unjust enrichment was met by the appellant's evidence. The case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a detailed analysis of the certificates and evidence presented by the appellant to establish that duty incidence was not passed on. The appellant was given a reasonable opportunity to provide all necessary documents for further review.

---