https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118239 CESTAT, Mumbai held that exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. could not be denied merely because the Essentiality Certificate was not produced at the time of clearance, where the importer had claimed the concessional rate and later filed the certificate with the refund claim; the certificate was treated as sufficient proof of compliance with the notification conditions, so exemption was accepted. The Tribunal also noted that refund entitlement still depended on whether the duty burden had been passed on, and remanded the question of unjust enrichment to the adjudicating authority for fresh factual determination after giving the importer an opportunity to produce evidence. en-us Thu, 04 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:15:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118239 CESTAT, Mumbai held that exemption under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. could not be denied merely because the Essentiality Certificate was not produced at the time of clearance, where the importer had claimed the concessional rate and later filed the certificate with the refund claim; the certificate was treated as sufficient proof of compliance with the notification conditions, so exemption was accepted. The Tribunal also noted that refund entitlement still depended on whether the duty burden had been passed on, and remanded the question of unjust enrichment to the adjudicating authority for fresh factual determination after giving the importer an opportunity to produce evidence. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118239