https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110914 The court upheld the decision to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, as it was found that the full duty burden had been passed on to customers. The judge determined that unjust enrichment applied as the retail sale price was not fixed by any statutory authority, allowing the appellants to vary the price. The interpretation of Section 4A clarified that while valuation is based on retail sale price, it does not require fixing by a statutory authority. The invoices showed a 16% duty included in the price charged to customers, exceeding the 9.6% duty the appellants were required to pay. en-us Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:51:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110914 The court upheld the decision to credit the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, as it was found that the full duty burden had been passed on to customers. The judge determined that unjust enrichment applied as the retail sale price was not fixed by any statutory authority, allowing the appellants to vary the price. The interpretation of Section 4A clarified that while valuation is based on retail sale price, it does not require fixing by a statutory authority. The invoices showed a 16% duty included in the price charged to customers, exceeding the 9.6% duty the appellants were required to pay. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110914