https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125704 The Tribunal dismissed the stay petition under Section 35F as no deposit was required due to the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original. The case involved the non-inclusion of label costs in the assessable value, leading to a duty underpayment. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and refund claim, rejecting arguments on pre-deposit and unjust enrichment. Certifications from buyers and accountants supported the finding that the duty deposit was not recovered, aligning with previous decisions. The Tribunal's decision encompassed pre-deposit, refund, and unjust enrichment issues, ultimately disposing of the stay petition. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Aug 2017 10:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125704 The Tribunal dismissed the stay petition under Section 35F as no deposit was required due to the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order-in-original. The case involved the non-inclusion of label costs in the assessable value, leading to a duty underpayment. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and refund claim, rejecting arguments on pre-deposit and unjust enrichment. Certifications from buyers and accountants supported the finding that the duty deposit was not recovered, aligning with previous decisions. The Tribunal's decision encompassed pre-deposit, refund, and unjust enrichment issues, ultimately disposing of the stay petition. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125704