Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The case involved a dispute over unjust enrichment where the appellant was required to prove that customers received machines/equipment as invoiced. The Revenue failed to investigate with customers or transporters. Goods seized by Revenue were linked to the invoices. The appellant did not confirm clearance of goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) approved a refund, finding the appellant paid duty twice. The order was upheld, dismissing Revenue's appeal. The issue of unjust enrichment was referred for further verification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
