https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398661 The appeal was successful, with the CESTAT setting aside the original order creating demand of duty. A substantial question of law was admitted regarding the manufacturing location of components. The respondent's refund application for the deposited amount was initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, citing unjust enrichment not applicable. The appellant's challenge was dismissed by the Commissioner, emphasizing the lack of evidence against the CA certificate. The Tribunal upheld the decision, finding the burden was not passed on to customers. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the lack of evidence contradicting the findings of fact. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Sep 2020 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398661 The appeal was successful, with the CESTAT setting aside the original order creating demand of duty. A substantial question of law was admitted regarding the manufacturing location of components. The respondent's refund application for the deposited amount was initially allowed by the Assistant Commissioner, citing unjust enrichment not applicable. The appellant's challenge was dismissed by the Commissioner, emphasizing the lack of evidence against the CA certificate. The Tribunal upheld the decision, finding the burden was not passed on to customers. The appeal was ultimately dismissed due to the lack of evidence contradicting the findings of fact. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398661