https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90735 Where the original adjudication rejected a refund claim only for want of proof on unjust enrichment and did not examine the merits, the appellate authority should not decide the merits or the applicability of Notification No. 156/86 for the first time; the proper course is remand for de novo consideration. On short-shipped goods, unjust enrichment did not arise in the same manner, so refund was admissible to that extent and the finding on unjust enrichment was upheld only for those goods. The appellate order was therefore set aside in part and the matter sent back for fresh decision, while refund entitlement for short-shipped goods was preserved. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Oct 2011 11:08:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90735 Where the original adjudication rejected a refund claim only for want of proof on unjust enrichment and did not examine the merits, the appellate authority should not decide the merits or the applicability of Notification No. 156/86 for the first time; the proper course is remand for de novo consideration. On short-shipped goods, unjust enrichment did not arise in the same manner, so refund was admissible to that extent and the finding on unjust enrichment was upheld only for those goods. The appellate order was therefore set aside in part and the matter sent back for fresh decision, while refund entitlement for short-shipped goods was preserved. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90735