https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53045 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, overturning lower authorities' decisions and granting refunds for imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment was not met by the Department, as the presumption of duty burden being passed on is rebuttable. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-mention of duty in invoices does not automatically preclude refund claims, and the Department failed to establish unjust enrichment. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to refunds, and the presumption under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962, was deemed rebuttable, favoring the appellant. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jul 2024 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53045 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, overturning lower authorities' decisions and granting refunds for imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the burden of proof regarding unjust enrichment was not met by the Department, as the presumption of duty burden being passed on is rebuttable. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-mention of duty in invoices does not automatically preclude refund claims, and the Department failed to establish unjust enrichment. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to refunds, and the presumption under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962, was deemed rebuttable, favoring the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53045