https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335562 The tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the respondent, a cement manufacturer, regarding a duty component discrepancy in invoices. The respondent's refund claim, initially rejected for unjust enrichment, was later allowed based on precedent cases. The tribunal found that the duty component was passed on to the buyer as shown in the invoices, establishing non-enrichment. The tribunal concluded that the contracted price inclusive of duty was the sole consideration for the goods, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. en-us Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335562 The tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the respondent, a cement manufacturer, regarding a duty component discrepancy in invoices. The respondent's refund claim, initially rejected for unjust enrichment, was later allowed based on precedent cases. The tribunal found that the duty component was passed on to the buyer as shown in the invoices, establishing non-enrichment. The tribunal concluded that the contracted price inclusive of duty was the sole consideration for the goods, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335562