https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760587 CESTAT Mumbai-AT allowed the appeal in a customs refund case involving unjust enrichment principles. The first appellate authority had rejected the refund claim, finding the chartered accountant's certificate insufficient to overcome the presumption under section 28D of the Customs Act that duty incidence was passed on to buyers. CESTAT identified three flaws: the authority failed to provide opportunity to remedy documentary gaps, improperly directed recovery without following section 28 procedures, and misapplied the Supreme Court precedent regarding exemption notifications. The tribunal found the certificate adequately demonstrated transfer to receivables, satisfying unjust enrichment requirements, and restored the original refund-sanctioning authority's order. en-us Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:15:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760587 CESTAT Mumbai-AT allowed the appeal in a customs refund case involving unjust enrichment principles. The first appellate authority had rejected the refund claim, finding the chartered accountant's certificate insufficient to overcome the presumption under section 28D of the Customs Act that duty incidence was passed on to buyers. CESTAT identified three flaws: the authority failed to provide opportunity to remedy documentary gaps, improperly directed recovery without following section 28 procedures, and misapplied the Supreme Court precedent regarding exemption notifications. The tribunal found the certificate adequately demonstrated transfer to receivables, satisfying unjust enrichment requirements, and restored the original refund-sanctioning authority's order. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 19 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760587