https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336255 The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of a refund claim based on unjust enrichment. The appellant, a Telephone Equipment manufacturer, had paid a differential duty under protest, which was demanded by revenue authorities. Despite the rejection of the refund claim due to lack of evidence by the Assistant Commissioner, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant. The Court directed a review of the appellant's financial records and a Chartered Accountant's certificate within 60 days to ascertain if unjust enrichment existed, providing the appellant an opportunity for a hearing. en-us Mon, 28 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336255 The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of a refund claim based on unjust enrichment. The appellant, a Telephone Equipment manufacturer, had paid a differential duty under protest, which was demanded by revenue authorities. Despite the rejection of the refund claim due to lack of evidence by the Assistant Commissioner, the Court ruled in favor of the appellant. The Court directed a review of the appellant's financial records and a Chartered Accountant's certificate within 60 days to ascertain if unjust enrichment existed, providing the appellant an opportunity for a hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336255