https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89775 A refund claim supported by the original duty-paying documents and connected appellate orders could not be rejected for lack of documentation. Where an input benefit had been wrongly denied earlier and later upheld as admissible, restoration could be given either by cash refund or by credit to the RG 23A Part II account, placing the assessee in the position it would have occupied if the benefit had been correctly allowed. The bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable because the claim concerned restoration of input credit falling within the proviso to section 11B(2), not a case governed by the consumer-welfare-fund route. en-us Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:19:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89775 A refund claim supported by the original duty-paying documents and connected appellate orders could not be rejected for lack of documentation. Where an input benefit had been wrongly denied earlier and later upheld as admissible, restoration could be given either by cash refund or by credit to the RG 23A Part II account, placing the assessee in the position it would have occupied if the benefit had been correctly allowed. The bar of unjust enrichment was held inapplicable because the claim concerned restoration of input credit falling within the proviso to section 11B(2), not a case governed by the consumer-welfare-fund route. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89775