https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290745 The appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed, upholding the impugned order. The judgment emphasized the significance of providing documentary evidence to substantiate claims, particularly in cases concerning duty assessment and refund disputes. The appellant's failure to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to others led to the refund being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The request to recall the order was denied, highlighting the finality of pronounced orders. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Oct 2020 10:41:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290745 The appeals filed by the appellant were dismissed, upholding the impugned order. The judgment emphasized the significance of providing documentary evidence to substantiate claims, particularly in cases concerning duty assessment and refund disputes. The appellant's failure to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to others led to the refund being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund (CWF) based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The request to recall the order was denied, highlighting the finality of pronounced orders. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290745