https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341666 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection and ruling in favor of the appellant. The refund claim was deemed timely and jurisdictionally appropriate, considering the specific customs jurisdiction for the 100% EOU operations. The discrepancy in company names for duty payment and refund claim was accepted due to a legitimate name change supported by documentation. The principle of unjust enrichment was found not applicable to the 100% EOU scenario, exempting the appellant from such considerations. en-us Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 May 2017 10:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341666 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection and ruling in favor of the appellant. The refund claim was deemed timely and jurisdictionally appropriate, considering the specific customs jurisdiction for the 100% EOU operations. The discrepancy in company names for duty payment and refund claim was accepted due to a legitimate name change supported by documentation. The principle of unjust enrichment was found not applicable to the 100% EOU scenario, exempting the appellant from such considerations. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341666