https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78250 The case involved a dispute over the refund of export duty on cashew nut kernels. The claim for refund was initially rejected due to the belief that the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer. However, the Vice-President clarified that the refund of export duty falls under Section 26 of the Customs Act, not Section 27 which deals with unjust enrichment. It was determined that the assessees were entitled to the refund without having to prove non-passing of duty incidence. Consequently, the initial rejection was overturned, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78250 The case involved a dispute over the refund of export duty on cashew nut kernels. The claim for refund was initially rejected due to the belief that the duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer. However, the Vice-President clarified that the refund of export duty falls under Section 26 of the Customs Act, not Section 27 which deals with unjust enrichment. It was determined that the assessees were entitled to the refund without having to prove non-passing of duty incidence. Consequently, the initial rejection was overturned, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78250