https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380555 The appellant challenged undervaluation allegations and demands confirmed in Orders-in-Original. The appeal stemmed from a remand order against the Order-in-Appeal, subsequently set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) debated changing opinions, constrained by prior directions. Unjust enrichment issues arose regarding payments made under protest, not falling under such principles during adjudication. Disputes over duty passed to the appellant's unit were resolved in their favor, leading to a refund entitlement. The judgment stressed honoring final decisions, setting aside the impugned order, and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. en-us Wed, 01 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 May 2019 11:44:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380555 The appellant challenged undervaluation allegations and demands confirmed in Orders-in-Original. The appeal stemmed from a remand order against the Order-in-Appeal, subsequently set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) debated changing opinions, constrained by prior directions. Unjust enrichment issues arose regarding payments made under protest, not falling under such principles during adjudication. Disputes over duty passed to the appellant's unit were resolved in their favor, leading to a refund entitlement. The judgment stressed honoring final decisions, setting aside the impugned order, and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=380555