https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108246 The appellate tribunal affirmed the rejection of refund claims for excise duty on acrylic yarn, amounting to Rs. 18,01,955/-, due to unjust enrichment. The Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) held that the duty was presumed passed on to buyers as the duty element was not separately indicated in the invoices, as required by Sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found no merit in the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions to establish entitlement to refund claims and avoid unjust enrichment. en-us Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 16:03:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108246 The appellate tribunal affirmed the rejection of refund claims for excise duty on acrylic yarn, amounting to Rs. 18,01,955/-, due to unjust enrichment. The Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) held that the duty was presumed passed on to buyers as the duty element was not separately indicated in the invoices, as required by Sections 12A and 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The tribunal found no merit in the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory provisions to establish entitlement to refund claims and avoid unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108246