https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104242 Refund of amounts paid toward card cans was not treated as a mere deposit because the assessee did not dispute that the duty burden had been passed on to buyers. The payment was therefore characterised as duty, attracting the bar of unjust enrichment. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have erred in holding that unjust enrichment did not apply and in directing adjustment of the refund against duty payable on intermediate goods. The refund claim was accordingly not maintainable as a deposit-based claim free from unjust enrichment. en-us Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:14:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104242 Refund of amounts paid toward card cans was not treated as a mere deposit because the assessee did not dispute that the duty burden had been passed on to buyers. The payment was therefore characterised as duty, attracting the bar of unjust enrichment. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have erred in holding that unjust enrichment did not apply and in directing adjustment of the refund against duty payable on intermediate goods. The refund claim was accordingly not maintainable as a deposit-based claim free from unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104242