https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350393 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order denying the refund to the appellant. The Tribunal found that unjust enrichment did not apply as the appellant had not passed on the duty to buyers and had borne it themselves. The finding that the duty was paid from an incorrect date was deemed inaccurate, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate supported the appellant's position. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the refund with consequential relief. en-us Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Nov 2017 08:46:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350393 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order denying the refund to the appellant. The Tribunal found that unjust enrichment did not apply as the appellant had not passed on the duty to buyers and had borne it themselves. The finding that the duty was paid from an incorrect date was deemed inaccurate, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate supported the appellant's position. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the refund with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350393