https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780666 CESTAT KOLKATA (AT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, directing refund of CVD. The tribunal held the refund claim was not time-barred-filed within one year of the SC decision and payments were made "under protest"-so limitation defence failed. Denial for lack of original TR-6 challans was rejected as hyper-technical since departmental records can verify payments. The unjust-enrichment objection was also overturned: the assessee had certified (and a CA confirmed) that the duty was not passed to consumers, so refund must be granted. en-us Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:03:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780666 CESTAT KOLKATA (AT) allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, directing refund of CVD. The tribunal held the refund claim was not time-barred-filed within one year of the SC decision and payments were made "under protest"-so limitation defence failed. Denial for lack of original TR-6 challans was rejected as hyper-technical since departmental records can verify payments. The unjust-enrichment objection was also overturned: the assessee had certified (and a CA confirmed) that the duty was not passed to consumers, so refund must be granted. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 07 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780666