https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271435 The appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims for duty paid under protest. The tribunal held that the burden of proof was on the appellant to show that the duty was not passed on to customers, noting that invoices indicated a higher duty rate. Despite acknowledging the lower authorities' findings, the tribunal allowed the appeal for remand, giving the appellant a chance to provide additional evidence to support their claim. This case emphasizes the necessity of proving non-transfer of duty burden to customers and the importance of substantiating refund claims with substantial evidence. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Feb 2016 19:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271435 The appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims for duty paid under protest. The tribunal held that the burden of proof was on the appellant to show that the duty was not passed on to customers, noting that invoices indicated a higher duty rate. Despite acknowledging the lower authorities' findings, the tribunal allowed the appeal for remand, giving the appellant a chance to provide additional evidence to support their claim. This case emphasizes the necessity of proving non-transfer of duty burden to customers and the importance of substantiating refund claims with substantial evidence. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271435