https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381036 The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs, citing limitation and failure to prove non-passing of duty incidence. The appellant argued that their appeal was not time-barred and met the burden of proof for limitation. Regarding unjust enrichment, the Tribunal found the refund claim timely filed and the burden of proof met based on evidence presented. The case was remanded for further analysis of evidence to establish duty non-passing. The appellant was granted an opportunity to provide additional documentation. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 14:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381036 The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the Commissioner of Customs, citing limitation and failure to prove non-passing of duty incidence. The appellant argued that their appeal was not time-barred and met the burden of proof for limitation. Regarding unjust enrichment, the Tribunal found the refund claim timely filed and the burden of proof met based on evidence presented. The case was remanded for further analysis of evidence to establish duty non-passing. The appellant was granted an opportunity to provide additional documentation. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381036