TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether the refund claim of special additional duty was barred by unjust enrichment, despite the statutory auditor's certificate and the departmental circulars governing the claim.
Analysis: The appeal concerned refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Circular No. 6/2008-Cus and Circular No. 18/2010-Cus. The circular dated 28.04.2008 treated a certificate from the statutory auditor certifying that the burden of 4% SED had not been passed on as sufficient to satisfy the requirement of unjust enrichment. The record showed that this requirement had been complied with. The departmental circulars were binding on revenue authorities, and the appeal was found to be contrary to those instructions.
Conclusion: The objection based on unjust enrichment was rejected, and the refund claim was upheld in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
