https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336723 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for reconsideration in light of a Bombay High Court judgment. The appellant's claim for a duty refund under Notification No. 155/86-Cus was initially granted but later denied due to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that duty incidence was not passed on as the capital goods were used internally. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof was not met but acknowledged the need for reconsideration based on the new legal precedent. The case underscores the importance of proving non-passing of duty incidence and citing relevant judgments in similar cases. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Dec 2016 07:22:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336723 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for reconsideration in light of a Bombay High Court judgment. The appellant's claim for a duty refund under Notification No. 155/86-Cus was initially granted but later denied due to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The appellant argued that duty incidence was not passed on as the capital goods were used internally. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof was not met but acknowledged the need for reconsideration based on the new legal precedent. The case underscores the importance of proving non-passing of duty incidence and citing relevant judgments in similar cases. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336723