https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204061 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. It found that the appellant had proven that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers through CA Certificates and financial records. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) requesting further evidence without specifying requirements, the Tribunal held that the appellant had fulfilled their burden of proof. As a result, the refund claim was approved, and the appeal was decided in favor of the appellant. en-us Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204061 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. It found that the appellant had proven that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers through CA Certificates and financial records. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) requesting further evidence without specifying requirements, the Tribunal held that the appellant had fulfilled their burden of proof. As a result, the refund claim was approved, and the appeal was decided in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204061