https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440673 The appeal involved issues of goods classification under CETA, benefit eligibility under Notification No.4/97-CE, refund of duty paid under protest, and unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under subheading 7323.10, granting benefit under the notification. The refund claim was partially rejected due to unjust enrichment, as the duty element was deemed passed on to consumers. The appellant's argument that issuing credit notes absolved them from passing on the duty was dismissed based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions on classification and unjust enrichment. en-us Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jul 2023 21:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440673 The appeal involved issues of goods classification under CETA, benefit eligibility under Notification No.4/97-CE, refund of duty paid under protest, and unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under subheading 7323.10, granting benefit under the notification. The refund claim was partially rejected due to unjust enrichment, as the duty element was deemed passed on to consumers. The appellant's argument that issuing credit notes absolved them from passing on the duty was dismissed based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decisions on classification and unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440673