https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77389 Refund was not barred by unjust enrichment because the pricing pattern showed clearance from the factory to the depot at a higher value and sale from the depot at a lower value, indicating that the duty burden had not been passed on to buyers. The absence of a separately shown excise duty component in the invoices was not decisive, as there was no statutory requirement that commercial invoices disclose a value break-up. Depot invoices predating factory clearance were also insufficient to establish unjust enrichment without a finding that factory gate invoices reflected a lower value than depot sale invoices. Refund was therefore admissible and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside. en-us Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77389 Refund was not barred by unjust enrichment because the pricing pattern showed clearance from the factory to the depot at a higher value and sale from the depot at a lower value, indicating that the duty burden had not been passed on to buyers. The absence of a separately shown excise duty component in the invoices was not decisive, as there was no statutory requirement that commercial invoices disclose a value break-up. Depot invoices predating factory clearance were also insufficient to establish unjust enrichment without a finding that factory gate invoices reflected a lower value than depot sale invoices. Refund was therefore admissible and credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77389