https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89788 Refund claims under excise law require proof that the duty incidence was passed on to the customer before crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The contract language was read as covering only duties actually leviable, and the specific clause referred only to sales tax and octroi, not Central Excise duty. As the department did not establish that excisable goods had emerged in the appellant's hands or that the lump sum price included any excise duty element, the surrounding correspondence and prior dispute supported the conclusion that the burden had not been shifted. The finding of unjust enrichment was set aside and refund was allowed in cash or by credit to the Personal Ledger Account. en-us Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 10:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89788 Refund claims under excise law require proof that the duty incidence was passed on to the customer before crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The contract language was read as covering only duties actually leviable, and the specific clause referred only to sales tax and octroi, not Central Excise duty. As the department did not establish that excisable goods had emerged in the appellant's hands or that the lump sum price included any excise duty element, the surrounding correspondence and prior dispute supported the conclusion that the burden had not been shifted. The finding of unjust enrichment was set aside and refund was allowed in cash or by credit to the Personal Ledger Account. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89788