https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364605 The appeal before the CESTAT Mumbai involved a refund claim for duty paid twice on imported finished formulations. The appellant argued against unjust enrichment, stating the excess duty was not passed on to customers. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the initial refund approval due to lack of detailed reasoning. The Tribunal remanded the case for a thorough examination of evidence and a specific finding on duty passing incidence, instructing the adjudicating authority to provide the Range Superintendent's report to the appellant. Both parties agreed to expedite the process within a four-month timeframe. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for remand to address unjust enrichment and duty passing incidence conclusively. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Aug 2018 07:48:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364605 The appeal before the CESTAT Mumbai involved a refund claim for duty paid twice on imported finished formulations. The appellant argued against unjust enrichment, stating the excess duty was not passed on to customers. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the initial refund approval due to lack of detailed reasoning. The Tribunal remanded the case for a thorough examination of evidence and a specific finding on duty passing incidence, instructing the adjudicating authority to provide the Range Superintendent's report to the appellant. Both parties agreed to expedite the process within a four-month timeframe. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed for remand to address unjust enrichment and duty passing incidence conclusively. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=364605