https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109069 The appellants, engaged in manufacturing trailers, faced a dispute over the classification of their products under CETA sub-heading 8704.00 for duty payment. Their claim for a refund of excess duty paid was rejected, citing correct duty payment and lack of evidence. The lower authorities applied the unjust enrichment doctrine without notice, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The appellants argued duty payment under protest and lack of opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo adjudication, directing a fair opportunity for evidence presentation and consideration of all pleas, including classification under sub-heading 8716.00. en-us Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:17:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109069 The appellants, engaged in manufacturing trailers, faced a dispute over the classification of their products under CETA sub-heading 8704.00 for duty payment. Their claim for a refund of excess duty paid was rejected, citing correct duty payment and lack of evidence. The lower authorities applied the unjust enrichment doctrine without notice, leading to the rejection of the refund claim. The appellants argued duty payment under protest and lack of opportunity to present evidence. The Tribunal remanded the case for de novo adjudication, directing a fair opportunity for evidence presentation and consideration of all pleas, including classification under sub-heading 8716.00. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109069