https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208021 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for evidence to show that the burden of duty had not been passed on in order to claim a refund under Rule 41 of CESTAT Rules. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of analyzing the applicability of unjust enrichment principles post-amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act in cases of finalized assessments, ultimately ruling in favor of the importer based on the lack of contradiction between the adjudication order and the certification by a Chartered Accountant regarding unjust enrichment. en-us Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208021 The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for evidence to show that the burden of duty had not been passed on in order to claim a refund under Rule 41 of CESTAT Rules. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of analyzing the applicability of unjust enrichment principles post-amendment to Section 18 of the Customs Act in cases of finalized assessments, ultimately ruling in favor of the importer based on the lack of contradiction between the adjudication order and the certification by a Chartered Accountant regarding unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208021