https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124268 The case involved the duty payment on goods returned by a customer due to defects, seizure of goods from office premises, refund of duty paid a second time, and an unjust enrichment plea. The respondents provided evidence that the goods were cleared on payment of duty initially, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalty. The acknowledgment by the revenue that duty was paid initially resulted in the reversal of the demand for duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The refund claim was denied due to lack of evidence, and the plea of unjust enrichment was unsustainable as duty was paid at the time of clearance. The appeal filed by the revenue was rejected, providing relief to the respondents. en-us Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:15:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124268 The case involved the duty payment on goods returned by a customer due to defects, seizure of goods from office premises, refund of duty paid a second time, and an unjust enrichment plea. The respondents provided evidence that the goods were cleared on payment of duty initially, leading to the setting aside of confiscation and penalty. The acknowledgment by the revenue that duty was paid initially resulted in the reversal of the demand for duty, redemption fine, and penalty. The refund claim was denied due to lack of evidence, and the plea of unjust enrichment was unsustainable as duty was paid at the time of clearance. The appeal filed by the revenue was rejected, providing relief to the respondents. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124268