https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349517 A refund claim under a prescribed form cannot be rejected merely because documents listed as possible enclosures were not produced, where no statute or rule makes every enclosure mandatory and the claim can be decided on the material already on record. The requirement is procedural, not a ground for mechanical rejection. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not bar refund on the facts found, because the duty had been deposited provisionally against advance licences, the export obligation had been discharged, the DEEC book was logged, and the incidence of duty was not shown to have been passed on. The High Court therefore upheld the Tribunal's order allowing refund. en-us Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Jul 2018 17:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349517 A refund claim under a prescribed form cannot be rejected merely because documents listed as possible enclosures were not produced, where no statute or rule makes every enclosure mandatory and the claim can be decided on the material already on record. The requirement is procedural, not a ground for mechanical rejection. The doctrine of unjust enrichment also did not bar refund on the facts found, because the duty had been deposited provisionally against advance licences, the export obligation had been discharged, the DEEC book was logged, and the incidence of duty was not shown to have been passed on. The High Court therefore upheld the Tribunal's order allowing refund. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349517