Appellant's refund claim for differential duty under ...

Appellant's refund claim rejected due to lack of documents to rule out unjust enrichment, new evidence found irrelevant.

Case Laws Customs

September 28, 2024

Appellant's refund claim for differential duty under Notification No. 30/2004-CE was rejected due to failure to produce relevant documents like balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, invoices, and cost data to rule out unjust enrichment. Appellant attempted to introduce new evidence before the Tribunal, which is generally not permitted u/r 23 of the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, unless permitted through a separate application. The new evidence submitted was found irrelevant to the facts of the case. The lower authority's view rejecting the refund claim was reasonable, legal, and proper. The appeal was rejected as the lacunae pointed out by the Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) remained unaddressed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Appellant's refund claim for differential duty under ...

Appellant's refund claim rejected due to lack of documents to rule out unjust enrichment, new evidence found irrelevant.

Case Laws Customs

September 28, 2024

You may also like:

Show cause notice demanding interest was confirmed by the original Adjudicating Authority and settled under SVLDRS Scheme, thus refund of the confirmed amount does not...

Appellant filed refund claim which was initially rejected by original authority on grounds of ineligibility for exemption notification. Commissioner (Appeals) remanded...

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Initially claim filed without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry - During the appeal process, the appellant sought to amend...

The appellant sought refund of countervailing duty (CVD) paid while importing goods declared as 'Natural gum in raw form' through Bills of Entry filed during 2011-2014....

Refund of SAD - The appellant, a trader, imported goods and claimed a refund on the paid Special Additional Duty (SAD). However, the refund claims were rejected by the...

The case involved a refund claim for duty paid under protest, rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant paid duty under protest and filed a refund claim...

The appellant filed bills of entry claiming exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus, which was denied during re-assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) rectified...

Refund of service tax paid - unjust enrichment - Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of original authority rejecting the refund claim on the ground of unjust...

Refund claims – unjust enrichment – service tax paid under protest – refund allowed - AT

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid twice - e appellants are entitled for refund claim for duty paid on Ethanol - unjust enrichment is not applicable - AT

CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed unjust enrichment in a refund claim. The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 1,23,70,024 u/s the Tribunal's order. The appellant failed to prove...

Refund claim rejected by adjudicating authority on grounds that services provided by appellant to SOLCIL did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST...

Refund claim for unutilised cenvat credit - appellant took re-credit of the rejected amount of refund - the subordinate legislation is effective or in force till the...

Refund - Lack of documentary evidence - appellants have not submitted the evidence of payment of service tax on the specified services for which the refunds were sought...

Excess duty paid due to issuance of credit notes to dealers and stockists after clearance of goods was rejected on grounds of incidence being passed on and lack of...

Quick Updates: