https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254740 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling that unjust enrichment did not apply in the case involving a manufacturer of cotton yarn who paid additional duty during litigation after goods clearance. The Revenue's argument based on equity principles and legal precedents was rejected as the respondent did not pass on the duty incidence to buyers beyond the invoice price. The Tribunal found the duty payment post-clearance did not align with previous cases and emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that unjust enrichment was not applicable in this scenario. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254740 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling that unjust enrichment did not apply in the case involving a manufacturer of cotton yarn who paid additional duty during litigation after goods clearance. The Revenue's argument based on equity principles and legal precedents was rejected as the respondent did not pass on the duty incidence to buyers beyond the invoice price. The Tribunal found the duty payment post-clearance did not align with previous cases and emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claim. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that unjust enrichment was not applicable in this scenario. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254740