https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84742 The Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellant firm, concluding that they had passed on the burden of excise duty to their customers as evidenced by sales invoices. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of Section 12A in determining the duty passed on to customers and rejected the appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was deemed inapplicable due to lack of clear evidence. en-us Wed, 19 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 13:08:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84742 The Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the appellant firm, concluding that they had passed on the burden of excise duty to their customers as evidenced by sales invoices. The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of Section 12A in determining the duty passed on to customers and rejected the appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court judgment. The doctrine of unjust enrichment was deemed inapplicable due to lack of clear evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Jul 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84742