https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341460 The tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for further examination and readjudication. The appellant was granted an opportunity to demonstrate lack of unjust enrichment, with the authority directed to scrutinize evidence regarding the realization of duty by the consignment agent and any flow back to the appellant. The burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment was placed on the appellant, who presented invoices showing compliance with MRP regulations. The case outcome hinges on the authority's reassessment of evidence to determine if unjust enrichment occurred, emphasizing the need for thorough examination before reaching a final decision. en-us Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:21:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341460 The tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for further examination and readjudication. The appellant was granted an opportunity to demonstrate lack of unjust enrichment, with the authority directed to scrutinize evidence regarding the realization of duty by the consignment agent and any flow back to the appellant. The burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment was placed on the appellant, who presented invoices showing compliance with MRP regulations. The case outcome hinges on the authority's reassessment of evidence to determine if unjust enrichment occurred, emphasizing the need for thorough examination before reaching a final decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341460