https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53513 The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim, directing the Deputy Commissioner to verify and process the refund. It was determined that the error was in the assessment and payment of duties based on approved price lists, not in seeking a revision of prices. The Tribunal found that the duty payments exceeded the duty collected from buyers, thus unjust enrichment did not apply. The second appeal against the rejection of the revised price list was dismissed as the issue of retrospective approval became irrelevant. The Deputy Commissioner was instructed to issue the final refund order within eight weeks. en-us Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:26:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53513 The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the rejection of the refund claim, directing the Deputy Commissioner to verify and process the refund. It was determined that the error was in the assessment and payment of duties based on approved price lists, not in seeking a revision of prices. The Tribunal found that the duty payments exceeded the duty collected from buyers, thus unjust enrichment did not apply. The second appeal against the rejection of the revised price list was dismissed as the issue of retrospective approval became irrelevant. The Deputy Commissioner was instructed to issue the final refund order within eight weeks. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Nov 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53513