https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327319 The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, ruling that the notification fixing tariff value was not in effect at the time of import, making the department's claim for differential duty unjustified. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 9,19,801, but the department argued that encashing the bank guarantee constituted recovery of duty, invoking the principle of unjust enrichment. The High Court held that the principle applied as the encashment was a recovery of duty payable, directing the petitioner to provide evidence to show the refund claim was not affected by unjust enrichment. en-us Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2016 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327319 The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision, ruling that the notification fixing tariff value was not in effect at the time of import, making the department's claim for differential duty unjustified. The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 9,19,801, but the department argued that encashing the bank guarantee constituted recovery of duty, invoking the principle of unjust enrichment. The High Court held that the principle applied as the encashment was a recovery of duty payable, directing the petitioner to provide evidence to show the refund claim was not affected by unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 28 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327319