https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253828 The appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT, as the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to consumers. The amounts paid during the investigation were considered as duty, not deposits, subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant's arguments and cited case laws were deemed inapplicable due to differing circumstances. The first appellate authority's decision to credit the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was upheld. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Aug 2015 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253828 The appeal was dismissed by the CESTAT, as the appellant failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to consumers. The amounts paid during the investigation were considered as duty, not deposits, subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant's arguments and cited case laws were deemed inapplicable due to differing circumstances. The first appellate authority's decision to credit the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 04 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253828