https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176720 The case involved a dispute over duty computation for fabric processing, with the appellant ultimately prevailing and claiming a refund for excess duty paid. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was found not applicable to goods cleared under a specific scheme. The burden of proof on passing duty to consumers was crucial, and the appellant's lack of evidence hindered their case. Without supporting documentation, the appellant's claim was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in tax disputes, particularly concerning duty burdens. The judgment stressed the significance of proper documentation and adherence to legal principles in resolving duty payment and refund disputes. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:19:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176720 The case involved a dispute over duty computation for fabric processing, with the appellant ultimately prevailing and claiming a refund for excess duty paid. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was found not applicable to goods cleared under a specific scheme. The burden of proof on passing duty to consumers was crucial, and the appellant's lack of evidence hindered their case. Without supporting documentation, the appellant's claim was dismissed, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in tax disputes, particularly concerning duty burdens. The judgment stressed the significance of proper documentation and adherence to legal principles in resolving duty payment and refund disputes. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176720