https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212624 The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal regarding the refund claim for excess customs duty paid. The Appellant failed to sufficiently prove non-passing of the duty incidence to consumers, as evidenced by an increasing trend in material costs and a reduction in prices post-1998 budget. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof under Section 11B of the Customs Act, concluding that the evidence presented only showed anticipation of a refund, not non-passing of duty incidence. The appeal was dismissed on 26-8-2011. en-us Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212624 The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal regarding the refund claim for excess customs duty paid. The Appellant failed to sufficiently prove non-passing of the duty incidence to consumers, as evidenced by an increasing trend in material costs and a reduction in prices post-1998 budget. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof under Section 11B of the Customs Act, concluding that the evidence presented only showed anticipation of a refund, not non-passing of duty incidence. The appeal was dismissed on 26-8-2011. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212624