https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343327 The Member (Judicial) disagreed with lower authorities' conclusion on unjust enrichment in the refund claim of anti-dumping duty, emphasizing that mere accounting in the profit and loss account does not definitively establish passing on the duty incidence. The appellant was granted another chance to prove non-passing of duty incidence, with the matter remanded for submission of additional documents and explanations. The adjudicating authority was directed to reprocess the refund claim within three months, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing. The judgment underscored the importance of providing litigants opportunities to defend their cases in refund claims for fairness and proper substantiation. en-us Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 May 2017 07:54:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343327 The Member (Judicial) disagreed with lower authorities' conclusion on unjust enrichment in the refund claim of anti-dumping duty, emphasizing that mere accounting in the profit and loss account does not definitively establish passing on the duty incidence. The appellant was granted another chance to prove non-passing of duty incidence, with the matter remanded for submission of additional documents and explanations. The adjudicating authority was directed to reprocess the refund claim within three months, ensuring the appellant's right to a personal hearing. The judgment underscored the importance of providing litigants opportunities to defend their cases in refund claims for fairness and proper substantiation. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343327