https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112385 The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to the end consumer, despite claiming a refund based on unjust enrichment. The authorities upheld the Order-in-Original, directing the refund to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund, as the appellants could not demonstrate that they did not pass on the duty incidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the debit notes presented by the appellants as insufficient evidence and upheld the decision based on the principle of unjust enrichment. en-us Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Apr 2012 18:44:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112385 The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to prove that the duty incidence was not passed on to the end consumer, despite claiming a refund based on unjust enrichment. The authorities upheld the Order-in-Original, directing the refund to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund, as the appellants could not demonstrate that they did not pass on the duty incidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the debit notes presented by the appellants as insufficient evidence and upheld the decision based on the principle of unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112385