https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85766 CESTAT dismissed an appeal concerning refund claims for excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) on mobile phone imports. The tribunal upheld rejection on three grounds: time-bar (claim filed in 2019 for 2014 payments exceeded one-year limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, with no evidence of protest payment), lack of prerequisite reassessment (77 Bills of Entry remained unmodified despite appellant's amendment request), and failure to overcome unjust enrichment presumption (insufficient evidence that duty burden wasn't passed to buyers). The appellant's incomplete CA certificate failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Section 27 of Customs Act. en-us Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:00:46 +0530 Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:00:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85766 CESTAT dismissed an appeal concerning refund claims for excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) on mobile phone imports. The tribunal upheld rejection on three grounds: time-bar (claim filed in 2019 for 2014 payments exceeded one-year limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, with no evidence of protest payment), lack of prerequisite reassessment (77 Bills of Entry remained unmodified despite appellant's amendment request), and failure to overcome unjust enrichment presumption (insufficient evidence that duty burden wasn't passed to buyers). The appellant's incomplete CA certificate failed to discharge the burden of proof required under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and Section 27 of Customs Act. Highlights Customs Sat, 15 Feb 2025 08:00:46 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85766