https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31686 The appeal was allowed regarding the second refund claim as the tribunal found no unjust enrichment since the higher duty could not be passed on to buyers. The amount was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The tribunal directed a reexamination of the first claim to determine if it should be considered provisional based on a price variation clause in the agreement with the buyer, which was not found in the records. The Original authority was instructed to reconsider the matter within three months based on the agreement and case laws submitted by the appellant. en-us Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31686 The appeal was allowed regarding the second refund claim as the tribunal found no unjust enrichment since the higher duty could not be passed on to buyers. The amount was ordered to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The tribunal directed a reexamination of the first claim to determine if it should be considered provisional based on a price variation clause in the agreement with the buyer, which was not found in the records. The Original authority was instructed to reconsider the matter within three months based on the agreement and case laws submitted by the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31686