https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781231 The refund dispute turned on unjust enrichment. The importer showed, through a Chartered Accountant's certificate and a comparative sale-price table, that bunker oil was sold below the import price on which duty had been paid, indicating that the duty incidence had not been passed on. Mere debit of the duty in the accounts was insufficient to sustain the statutory presumption once this material was produced. The burden then shifted to the department to rebut the evidence with tangible proof, which it failed to do. The refund was therefore admissible and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. en-us Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Nov 2025 11:59:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781231 The refund dispute turned on unjust enrichment. The importer showed, through a Chartered Accountant's certificate and a comparative sale-price table, that bunker oil was sold below the import price on which duty had been paid, indicating that the duty incidence had not been passed on. Mere debit of the duty in the accounts was insufficient to sustain the statutory presumption once this material was produced. The burden then shifted to the department to rebut the evidence with tangible proof, which it failed to do. The refund was therefore admissible and the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781231