https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233587 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund claim as it was filed within the prescribed time limit and arose from finalization of provisional assessments. The burden of proof regarding duty refund was met by the appellant, as evidenced by a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and lack of price increase in the final product. The assessments were deemed provisional during the disputed period, and the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment was found unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233587 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the principle of unjust enrichment did not apply to the refund claim as it was filed within the prescribed time limit and arose from finalization of provisional assessments. The burden of proof regarding duty refund was met by the appellant, as evidenced by a Chartered Accountant's Certificate and lack of price increase in the final product. The assessments were deemed provisional during the disputed period, and the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment was found unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the rejection and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233587