https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326031 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. It held that duty should be paid based on the agreed-upon price for specific transactions, not a uniform value based on depot location. The appellant's refund claims were deemed valid as they paid duty at a higher value but recovered at a lower value from dealers in different areas. Additionally, the Tribunal found that unjust enrichment did not apply as the excess duty paid was not recovered from the dealers, shifting the burden to the Revenue to prove otherwise. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellant. en-us Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2016 11:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326031 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both issues. It held that duty should be paid based on the agreed-upon price for specific transactions, not a uniform value based on depot location. The appellant's refund claims were deemed valid as they paid duty at a higher value but recovered at a lower value from dealers in different areas. Additionally, the Tribunal found that unjust enrichment did not apply as the excess duty paid was not recovered from the dealers, shifting the burden to the Revenue to prove otherwise. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326031