https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52500 The Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the unjust enrichment clause does not apply to capital goods in the context of refunding customs duty. The Court emphasized that the duty burden, not the duty itself, must be passed on to another party for the unjust enrichment clause to be triggered. Since the capital goods in question were utilized as fitment for existing capital goods without any evidence of value enhancement in the finished goods, the Court found that the duty incidence was not transferred to another party. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the refund of customs duty. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:43:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52500 The Court ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the unjust enrichment clause does not apply to capital goods in the context of refunding customs duty. The Court emphasized that the duty burden, not the duty itself, must be passed on to another party for the unjust enrichment clause to be triggered. Since the capital goods in question were utilized as fitment for existing capital goods without any evidence of value enhancement in the finished goods, the Court found that the duty incidence was not transferred to another party. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to the refund of customs duty. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52500