https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108513 The appeal challenged the denial of a refund claim for duty paid prior to six months under Section 11B(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944. The Tribunal allowed the refund, considering the appellants' non-passing on of duty to customers. The relevant date for the refund claim was determined as the date of knowledge, not payment date. The Tribunal found no unjust enrichment as duty burden was not transferred to customers. The interpretation of brand name provisions clarified duty liability, emphasizing non-application if goods were not traded in the open market. The refund claim was deemed valid within the six-month time limit. en-us Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108513 The appeal challenged the denial of a refund claim for duty paid prior to six months under Section 11B(1) of the C.E. Act, 1944. The Tribunal allowed the refund, considering the appellants' non-passing on of duty to customers. The relevant date for the refund claim was determined as the date of knowledge, not payment date. The Tribunal found no unjust enrichment as duty burden was not transferred to customers. The interpretation of brand name provisions clarified duty liability, emphasizing non-application if goods were not traded in the open market. The refund claim was deemed valid within the six-month time limit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108513