https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86380 Questions challenging refund, duty liability and the bar of unjust enrichment were treated as fact-bound rather than as referable questions of law under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the legal position on unjust enrichment is settled where payment was not made finally and unconditionally, and that the applicants were in substance disputing evidentiary appreciation and factual findings on whether duty had been discharged on the tobacco in question. On that basis, no referable question of law arose and the reference application was rejected. en-us Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:35:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86380 Questions challenging refund, duty liability and the bar of unjust enrichment were treated as fact-bound rather than as referable questions of law under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that the legal position on unjust enrichment is settled where payment was not made finally and unconditionally, and that the applicants were in substance disputing evidentiary appreciation and factual findings on whether duty had been discharged on the tobacco in question. On that basis, no referable question of law arose and the reference application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86380