https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759914 CESTAT Bangalore allowed appellant's appeal for refund of excess export duty paid due to downward revision. Commissioner rejected refund claim arguing appellant failed to rebut Section 28D presumption regarding duty incidence pass-on under unjust enrichment principles. CESTAT found Commissioner erred by not analyzing documents properly, noting certified cost sheet showed export duty calculated separately from FOB value. Tribunal relied on Andhra Pradesh HC precedent holding FOB contracts rebut Section 28D presumption since duty not included in invoice value. CESTAT distinguished Department's cited circular as inapplicable to case facts and set aside impugned order. en-us Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2024 08:58:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759914 CESTAT Bangalore allowed appellant's appeal for refund of excess export duty paid due to downward revision. Commissioner rejected refund claim arguing appellant failed to rebut Section 28D presumption regarding duty incidence pass-on under unjust enrichment principles. CESTAT found Commissioner erred by not analyzing documents properly, noting certified cost sheet showed export duty calculated separately from FOB value. Tribunal relied on Andhra Pradesh HC precedent holding FOB contracts rebut Section 28D presumption since duty not included in invoice value. CESTAT distinguished Department's cited circular as inapplicable to case facts and set aside impugned order. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759914