https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114264 The appellant sought a refund of CVD paid under Customs Notification No. 51/2000, arguing it was not payable. Authorities acknowledged refund eligibility but directed the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to alleged passing on of costs to consumers. The appellant provided evidence showing duty not included in export costs, but the Commissioner found insufficient proof of unjust enrichment. Judicial Member noted contradictions, emphasizing proper evaluation of evidence. The order was set aside, remanding for a fresh assessment within six months, allowing the appeal. The judgment stresses fair evaluation of evidence for refund claims to uphold justice in customs matters. en-us Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2012 12:39:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114264 The appellant sought a refund of CVD paid under Customs Notification No. 51/2000, arguing it was not payable. Authorities acknowledged refund eligibility but directed the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund due to alleged passing on of costs to consumers. The appellant provided evidence showing duty not included in export costs, but the Commissioner found insufficient proof of unjust enrichment. Judicial Member noted contradictions, emphasizing proper evaluation of evidence. The order was set aside, remanding for a fresh assessment within six months, allowing the appeal. The judgment stresses fair evaluation of evidence for refund claims to uphold justice in customs matters. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114264