https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108880 Refund claims under central excise law were held time-barred because the applications related to a period long before filing, and the protest letter covered post-manufacturing expenses rather than the disputed deduction of metal container costs, so it did not save limitation. The refund also failed on unjust enrichment because the claimant did not dispute that finding and produced no evidence that the duty burden had not been passed on. The record did not show that the refund amount had been borne by the claimant. The stated principle is that a refund is not maintainable when filed beyond limitation and when the claimant cannot prove non-passing of duty incidence. en-us Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Apr 2012 13:29:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108880 Refund claims under central excise law were held time-barred because the applications related to a period long before filing, and the protest letter covered post-manufacturing expenses rather than the disputed deduction of metal container costs, so it did not save limitation. The refund also failed on unjust enrichment because the claimant did not dispute that finding and produced no evidence that the duty burden had not been passed on. The record did not show that the refund amount had been borne by the claimant. The stated principle is that a refund is not maintainable when filed beyond limitation and when the claimant cannot prove non-passing of duty incidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108880