https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247128 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, leading to the filing of a refund claim. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 17.5 lakhs was not sustainable as it pertained to a period before the amendment of the Customs Act. It was concluded that the nature of the deposit remained as a pre-deposit and the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the impugned order was set aside. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247128 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, leading to the filing of a refund claim. The Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund claim of Rs. 17.5 lakhs was not sustainable as it pertained to a period before the amendment of the Customs Act. It was concluded that the nature of the deposit remained as a pre-deposit and the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, and the impugned order was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247128