https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117030 The Tribunal remanded the matter for a thorough examination of evidence to determine if the duty burden was passed on to customers. The Respondents failed to produce sufficient evidence to corroborate the refund claimed, leading to a direction for a fresh decision based on all relevant documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for corroboration from other records to support the claim of no price fluctuations. Ultimately, the Commissioner upheld the refund claim by M/s. Kodak India Ltd., finding the evidence presented by the Respondents sufficient to support their claim of no unjust enrichment, thereby rejecting the Department's appeal. en-us Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:44:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117030 The Tribunal remanded the matter for a thorough examination of evidence to determine if the duty burden was passed on to customers. The Respondents failed to produce sufficient evidence to corroborate the refund claimed, leading to a direction for a fresh decision based on all relevant documentary evidence. The Tribunal emphasized the need for corroboration from other records to support the claim of no price fluctuations. Ultimately, the Commissioner upheld the refund claim by M/s. Kodak India Ltd., finding the evidence presented by the Respondents sufficient to support their claim of no unjust enrichment, thereby rejecting the Department's appeal. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117030