https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114406 The case involved a dispute over the availability of a concessional duty rate for imported goods used in manufacturing conveyor belts. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellants, but subsequent developments led to a claim for refund being subject to the unjust enrichment clause. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, which was challenged by the appellants. The court upheld the decision, emphasizing the burden of proof on the appellants to show that duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. The appeal was rejected due to insufficient evidence provided by the appellants. en-us Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 May 2012 14:26:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114406 The case involved a dispute over the availability of a concessional duty rate for imported goods used in manufacturing conveyor belts. The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the appellants, but subsequent developments led to a claim for refund being subject to the unjust enrichment clause. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the refund to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, which was challenged by the appellants. The court upheld the decision, emphasizing the burden of proof on the appellants to show that duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. The appeal was rejected due to insufficient evidence provided by the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114406