https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417109 The Tribunal held that the amount claimed by the appellant as a deposit was deemed a duty paid, not a security deposit, based on the bond and payment challan. Consequently, the refund was subject to Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, including time limits and unjust enrichment provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim, ruling in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the amount in question was indeed duty, thereby upholding the denial of the refund claim. en-us Thu, 13 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jan 2022 08:49:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417109 The Tribunal held that the amount claimed by the appellant as a deposit was deemed a duty paid, not a security deposit, based on the bond and payment challan. Consequently, the refund was subject to Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, including time limits and unjust enrichment provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's claim, ruling in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the amount in question was indeed duty, thereby upholding the denial of the refund claim. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 13 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417109