The case involved a dispute over unjust enrichment where the appellant was required to prove that...

The case involved a dispute over unjust enrichment where the appellant was required to prove that customers received machines/equipment as invoiced. The Revenue failed to investigate with customers or transporters. Goods seized by Revenue were linked to the invoices. The appellant did not confirm clearance of goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) approved a refund, finding the appellant paid duty twice. The order was upheld, dismissing Revenue's appeal. The issue of unjust enrichment was referred for further verification. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X