https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102868 Refund claim concerned differential excise duty under a concessional 50% rate and whether duty incidence was passed to customers; invoice evidence showing composite price with duty not indicated separately supported the conclusion that duty was not passed on, discharging the burden of proof on the claimant, and negating unjust enrichment as a ground to deny refund. Reliance was placed on prior tribunal decisions affirmed by higher authority that identical invoicing establishes the presumption that duty was not borne by consumers, resulting in allowance of the refund claim with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 17:05:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102868 Refund claim concerned differential excise duty under a concessional 50% rate and whether duty incidence was passed to customers; invoice evidence showing composite price with duty not indicated separately supported the conclusion that duty was not passed on, discharging the burden of proof on the claimant, and negating unjust enrichment as a ground to deny refund. Reliance was placed on prior tribunal decisions affirmed by higher authority that identical invoicing establishes the presumption that duty was not borne by consumers, resulting in allowance of the refund claim with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102868