https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240915 The Revenue's appeal against the order finding no unjust enrichment in a refund case was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the duty claimed as refund was not passed on to others, evidenced by adjustments made by DOT, Ernakulam. The Review Order emphasized the necessity of irrefutable evidence to support refund claims to prevent unjust enrichment. The absence of evidence from the Revenue led to the dismissal of the appeal, underscoring the importance of thorough documentation in such cases to avoid unjust enrichment issues. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Jan 2014 14:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240915 The Revenue's appeal against the order finding no unjust enrichment in a refund case was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) determined that the duty claimed as refund was not passed on to others, evidenced by adjustments made by DOT, Ernakulam. The Review Order emphasized the necessity of irrefutable evidence to support refund claims to prevent unjust enrichment. The absence of evidence from the Revenue led to the dismissal of the appeal, underscoring the importance of thorough documentation in such cases to avoid unjust enrichment issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240915