https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388231 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for the benefit of Notification No.16/82 dated 04 February, 1982, recognizing their entitlement to a concessional rate of duty. However, the refund claim for duty paid during 1983-84 was rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the order, directing the appellant to provide evidence, including invoices, to establish that the duty element was not collected from customers. The case underscores the significance of proving non-collection of duty from customers to support a refund claim and the necessity of thorough examination of documentary evidence in such matters. en-us Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Nov 2019 06:31:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388231 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for the benefit of Notification No.16/82 dated 04 February, 1982, recognizing their entitlement to a concessional rate of duty. However, the refund claim for duty paid during 1983-84 was rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the order, directing the appellant to provide evidence, including invoices, to establish that the duty element was not collected from customers. The case underscores the significance of proving non-collection of duty from customers to support a refund claim and the necessity of thorough examination of documentary evidence in such matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388231