https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76457 A refund claim arising from duty paid on the basis of annual production capacity fixed under the compounded levy scheme was held maintainable even though no separate appeal had been filed against the original fixation order, because the later legal position on exclusion of gallery length could still apply on the facts. The Revenue's objection based on finality of the fixation order was rejected on merits. The matter was nevertheless remanded for limited examination of unjust enrichment, since refund could not be granted without determining whether the duty burden had been passed on to buyers. en-us Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76457 A refund claim arising from duty paid on the basis of annual production capacity fixed under the compounded levy scheme was held maintainable even though no separate appeal had been filed against the original fixation order, because the later legal position on exclusion of gallery length could still apply on the facts. The Revenue's objection based on finality of the fixation order was rejected on merits. The matter was nevertheless remanded for limited examination of unjust enrichment, since refund could not be granted without determining whether the duty burden had been passed on to buyers. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76457