https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123249 The tribunal ruled against the appellant, upholding the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty burden was not passed on to customers, leading to the refund being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The tribunal emphasized the importance of importers providing substantial evidence to substantiate their claims regarding duty recovery. The burden of proof was on the appellant, who was unable to meet this requirement, resulting in the appeal being rejected. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Sep 2012 10:36:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123249 The tribunal ruled against the appellant, upholding the application of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the duty burden was not passed on to customers, leading to the refund being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The tribunal emphasized the importance of importers providing substantial evidence to substantiate their claims regarding duty recovery. The burden of proof was on the appellant, who was unable to meet this requirement, resulting in the appeal being rejected. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123249