https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85487 The appeal challenging the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 75,126.90 for duty paid twice on the same molasses was dismissed. The claim was deemed time-barred as subsequent duty payments lacked evidence and were considered unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found the protest letter did not align with duty payment timelines, lacked substance, and did not impact the time bar issue. Allegations of passing on duty costs to customers further supported the rejection of the claim. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on time bar, unjust enrichment, and lack of merit in the refund claim. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85487 The appeal challenging the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 75,126.90 for duty paid twice on the same molasses was dismissed. The claim was deemed time-barred as subsequent duty payments lacked evidence and were considered unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found the protest letter did not align with duty payment timelines, lacked substance, and did not impact the time bar issue. Allegations of passing on duty costs to customers further supported the rejection of the claim. The appeal was ultimately dismissed based on time bar, unjust enrichment, and lack of merit in the refund claim. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85487