https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93862 Refund of excise duty was examined against the bar of unjust enrichment, where the claimant had paid duty on a higher assessable value and sought refund of the excess. The central question was whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers; the record did not contain acceptable evidence to support the finding that the burden remained with the manufacturer, and the inference drawn from stock transfers to C & F agents and area-specific pricing was insufficient. In the absence of proof that the duty had not been passed on, the refund claim was not maintainable and the refund order was set aside. en-us Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:05:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93862 Refund of excise duty was examined against the bar of unjust enrichment, where the claimant had paid duty on a higher assessable value and sought refund of the excess. The central question was whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers; the record did not contain acceptable evidence to support the finding that the burden remained with the manufacturer, and the inference drawn from stock transfers to C & F agents and area-specific pricing was insufficient. In the absence of proof that the duty had not been passed on, the refund claim was not maintainable and the refund order was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93862