https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114612 Refund of excise duty was barred by unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the duty burden had been passed on at clearance. The Tribunal held that a later credit note issued to the buyer does not, by itself, displace the statutory bar or establish that the incidence of duty was retained by the assessee. The appellant's reliance on an earlier decision failed because that case involved a contract with a price-variation clause and a genuine price reduction linked to it, whereas the present purchase order fixed the price. The refund claim was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 May 2012 14:06:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114612 Refund of excise duty was barred by unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 because the duty burden had been passed on at clearance. The Tribunal held that a later credit note issued to the buyer does not, by itself, displace the statutory bar or establish that the incidence of duty was retained by the assessee. The appellant's reliance on an earlier decision failed because that case involved a contract with a price-variation clause and a genuine price reduction linked to it, whereas the present purchase order fixed the price. The refund claim was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114612