https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118895 The appellant appealed the denial of a refund of excess custom duty paid for imported lab equipment, contending that unjust enrichment principles should not apply to capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on certain grounds but rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment principles. The Revenue argued for verification of the treatment of imported goods as expenditure under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the application of unjust enrichment principles to capital goods, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant. The matter was remanded for further verification and a fresh decision, considering unjust enrichment and Income Tax Act provisions. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jul 2012 15:22:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118895 The appellant appealed the denial of a refund of excess custom duty paid for imported lab equipment, contending that unjust enrichment principles should not apply to capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal on certain grounds but rejected the refund claim citing unjust enrichment principles. The Revenue argued for verification of the treatment of imported goods as expenditure under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld the application of unjust enrichment principles to capital goods, shifting the burden of proof to the appellant. The matter was remanded for further verification and a fresh decision, considering unjust enrichment and Income Tax Act provisions. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=118895