https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419068 Refund was held to be within limitation because the one-year period was computed from the date of the Appellate Tribunal's order and the claim was filed within that period. The limitation objection was rejected. Refund nevertheless failed on unjust enrichment because the claimant did not produce acceptable documentary and accounting evidence to show that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, including proof that the amount was shown as receivable in the books. The refund was barred on that ground, and the claim failed despite being timely. en-us Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Mar 2022 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419068 Refund was held to be within limitation because the one-year period was computed from the date of the Appellate Tribunal's order and the claim was filed within that period. The limitation objection was rejected. Refund nevertheless failed on unjust enrichment because the claimant did not produce acceptable documentary and accounting evidence to show that the incidence of duty had not been passed on, including proof that the amount was shown as receivable in the books. The refund was barred on that ground, and the claim failed despite being timely. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 24 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=419068