https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761426 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed appellant's appeal for refund of CVD paid under protest. Appellant imported goods claiming exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, arguing CVD was not applicable as similar domestically manufactured articles were exempt from excise duty. Commissioner (A) had earlier allowed exemption claim, which attained finality as Revenue did not challenge. Tribunal rejected Revenue's unjust enrichment defense, citing binding precedent from appellant's own case where Division Bench had allowed similar appeal with consequential relief. Impugned refund rejection order was set aside with consequential relief granted. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 10 Nov 2024 19:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761426 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed appellant's appeal for refund of CVD paid under protest. Appellant imported goods claiming exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, arguing CVD was not applicable as similar domestically manufactured articles were exempt from excise duty. Commissioner (A) had earlier allowed exemption claim, which attained finality as Revenue did not challenge. Tribunal rejected Revenue's unjust enrichment defense, citing binding precedent from appellant's own case where Division Bench had allowed similar appeal with consequential relief. Impugned refund rejection order was set aside with consequential relief granted. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761426