https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218472 The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies even in cases of goods used for captive consumption. The Tribunal remanded the case for further examination to determine if the duty burden was passed on to consumers. After demonstrating that the duty liability was not transferred to customers through evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for a refund. The case was remanded for reevaluation and processing of the refund claim without invoking the unjust enrichment principle. en-us Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218472 The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies even in cases of goods used for captive consumption. The Tribunal remanded the case for further examination to determine if the duty burden was passed on to consumers. After demonstrating that the duty liability was not transferred to customers through evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for a refund. The case was remanded for reevaluation and processing of the refund claim without invoking the unjust enrichment principle. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218472