https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108827 Refund of excise duty was upheld because contemporaneous records, including invoices, ledger extracts, RT-12 returns, RG 23A records and the Chartered Accountant's certificate, showed that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers. The appellate record also supported the finding that the certificate was corroborated by other documents, so the claim was not hit by unjust enrichment. The refund was also treated as a duty-paid-under-protest claim because protest endorsements appeared on gate passes, RG 23A records, PLA and RT-12 returns, and there was no requirement for similar endorsements on commercial invoices. The claim was therefore not barred by limitation. en-us Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:00:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108827 Refund of excise duty was upheld because contemporaneous records, including invoices, ledger extracts, RT-12 returns, RG 23A records and the Chartered Accountant's certificate, showed that the duty incidence had not been passed on to customers. The appellate record also supported the finding that the certificate was corroborated by other documents, so the claim was not hit by unjust enrichment. The refund was also treated as a duty-paid-under-protest claim because protest endorsements appeared on gate passes, RG 23A records, PLA and RT-12 returns, and there was no requirement for similar endorsements on commercial invoices. The claim was therefore not barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108827