https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254597 Refund of the balance duty after remand was treated as admissible because the duty burden had not been shown to pass to any other person, and the machinery was used by the appellant for its own purposes. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was therefore inapplicable on the admitted facts. Non-production of the original documents required under the refund form regulations was treated only as a verification issue and not as an independent ground to reject an otherwise maintainable refund claim. The rejection of the refund was accordingly set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2014 11:14:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254597 Refund of the balance duty after remand was treated as admissible because the duty burden had not been shown to pass to any other person, and the machinery was used by the appellant for its own purposes. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was therefore inapplicable on the admitted facts. Non-production of the original documents required under the refund form regulations was treated only as a verification issue and not as an independent ground to reject an otherwise maintainable refund claim. The rejection of the refund was accordingly set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254597