Just a moment...
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 the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment and whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers.
Analysis: The refund dispute turned on whether mere disclosure of duty in invoices was conclusive proof of passing on the duty burden. The invoices had to disclose duty particulars under the excise law, and that circumstance by itself was not decisive. The comparative price data, the retention of substantially the same sale price, the explanation that margins were absorbed to maintain market competitiveness, and the Chartered Accountant certificate supported the finding that the duty was borne by the assessee. The burden to dislodge that material was on Revenue, and no contrary evidence was produced.
Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by unjust enrichment and the incidence of duty was not passed on to the buyers.
Final Conclusion: The order granting cash refund to the assessee was upheld and Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere mention of duty in excise invoices does not by itself establish passing on of the duty burden; unjust enrichment must be determined from the totality of evidence, and a duly supported professional certificate and price pattern may establish that the incidence was absorbed by the assessee.