https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112938 Refund claims for returned goods under Rule 173L were treated as governed by that rule's substantive refund framework, with Section 11B relevant only to limitation and not as an ordinary bar of unjust enrichment. Where the goods were rejected, no completed sale took place, and credit notes were issued for accounting adjustment, the duty incidence was held not to have been passed on to buyers, so unjust enrichment did not defeat the claim. On the later enquiry, res judicata did not bar the limited examination directed earlier, but once the assessee showed non-passing of duty, the burden shifted to the Revenue to rebut it, and that burden was not discharged. en-us Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 May 2012 17:18:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112938 Refund claims for returned goods under Rule 173L were treated as governed by that rule's substantive refund framework, with Section 11B relevant only to limitation and not as an ordinary bar of unjust enrichment. Where the goods were rejected, no completed sale took place, and credit notes were issued for accounting adjustment, the duty incidence was held not to have been passed on to buyers, so unjust enrichment did not defeat the claim. On the later enquiry, res judicata did not bar the limited examination directed earlier, but once the assessee showed non-passing of duty, the burden shifted to the Revenue to rebut it, and that burden was not discharged. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112938