Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether refund of Central Excise duty was barred by the doctrine of unjust enrichment when the assessee had granted discounts to buyers through cheques or debit notes and had claimed that the duty incidence was not passed on.
Analysis: The records showed that the assessee had allowed performance-based discounts, including cash discount, turnover discount, and special discount, in terms of its sales policy. The duty for which refund was claimed had been paid on the factory gate price, excluding the discount component, and the refund claims were supported by verification reports of the Range Officers certifying that the discount amounts had been passed on to buyers and that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. The Tribunal also noted that the refund claims were filed within limitation and that the earlier appellate findings on the passing on of discounts had not been disturbed by the Revenue.
Conclusion: The refund was not hit by unjust enrichment and the assessee was entitled to the refund.