https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451212 CESTAT Bangalore allowed appeals for 4% SAD refund. The adjudication authority rejected refund applications citing non-compliance with Notification No.102/2007 requirements and failure to demonstrate unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that Chartered Accountant certificates produced by appellants were sufficient to meet unjust enrichment requirements and notification compliance conditions. Following precedent from Karnataka HC in Apple India case, the Tribunal ruled that CA certificates adequately establish refund eligibility, making the rejection orders unsustainable. en-us Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:36:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451212 CESTAT Bangalore allowed appeals for 4% SAD refund. The adjudication authority rejected refund applications citing non-compliance with Notification No.102/2007 requirements and failure to demonstrate unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that Chartered Accountant certificates produced by appellants were sufficient to meet unjust enrichment requirements and notification compliance conditions. Following precedent from Karnataka HC in Apple India case, the Tribunal ruled that CA certificates adequately establish refund eligibility, making the rejection orders unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451212