https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96450 The appeal for a refund claim of excess Special Excise Duty (SED) paid by cement manufacturers was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate tribunal. The authorities found that the duty burden had been passed on to buyers, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants failed to rebut the presumption that the duty had been passed on, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Compliance with duty payment regulations and the burden of proof in refund claims were emphasized in this judgment. en-us Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:25:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96450 The appeal for a refund claim of excess Special Excise Duty (SED) paid by cement manufacturers was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appellate tribunal. The authorities found that the duty burden had been passed on to buyers, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants failed to rebut the presumption that the duty had been passed on, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Compliance with duty payment regulations and the burden of proof in refund claims were emphasized in this judgment. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96450