https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789642 Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995 was treated as mandating refund of provisional anti-dumping duty once the levy was withdrawn, and the refund was not to be denied by importing a redundant regime beyond that statutory command. The tribunal also noted that unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be applied mechanically merely because the duty was shown as expenditure in the accounts. A Chartered Accountant's certificate and surrounding material were considered sufficient to show that accounting treatment alone did not conclusively prove passing on of the duty incidence, so the refund and applicable interest were allowed. en-us Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789642 Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995 was treated as mandating refund of provisional anti-dumping duty once the levy was withdrawn, and the refund was not to be denied by importing a redundant regime beyond that statutory command. The tribunal also noted that unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be applied mechanically merely because the duty was shown as expenditure in the accounts. A Chartered Accountant's certificate and surrounding material were considered sufficient to show that accounting treatment alone did not conclusively prove passing on of the duty incidence, so the refund and applicable interest were allowed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789642