https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85430 Refund of central excise duty under the amended Section 11B required the claimant to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to consumers. Where invoices did not separately disclose the duty element, and the assessee relied only on the fact that the cum-duty sale price remained unchanged after the duty rate changed, that circumstance created only a rebuttable presumption. It was not enough, by itself, to establish that the incidence of duty was borne by the assessee. On the material on record, refund was not payable. en-us Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2022 16:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85430 Refund of central excise duty under the amended Section 11B required the claimant to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to consumers. Where invoices did not separately disclose the duty element, and the assessee relied only on the fact that the cum-duty sale price remained unchanged after the duty rate changed, that circumstance created only a rebuttable presumption. It was not enough, by itself, to establish that the incidence of duty was borne by the assessee. On the material on record, refund was not payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85430