https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53272 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal by setting aside the denial of a refund claim based on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the duty payment post-clearance under the compounded levy scheme absolved the appellants from proving non-recovery from customers. Emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to show recovery from customers, the Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh decision, citing legal principles that unjust enrichment presumption does not apply when duty is paid after goods clearance. This decision underscores the importance of legal principles and precedents in cases involving refund claims and unjust enrichment under Central Excise laws. en-us Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:25:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53272 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal by setting aside the denial of a refund claim based on unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the duty payment post-clearance under the compounded levy scheme absolved the appellants from proving non-recovery from customers. Emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to show recovery from customers, the Tribunal remanded the matter for a fresh decision, citing legal principles that unjust enrichment presumption does not apply when duty is paid after goods clearance. This decision underscores the importance of legal principles and precedents in cases involving refund claims and unjust enrichment under Central Excise laws. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53272