https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114879 The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyers, thus upholding the principle of unjust enrichment. Despite arguments regarding the tentative pricing and excess credit reversal, the court found that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof to support their refund claim. The authorities correctly applied legal precedent, affirming that the duty incidence had been transferred to the buyers, making the refund claim invalid. en-us Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 May 2012 18:26:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114879 The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to demonstrate that the duty incidence was not passed on to the buyers, thus upholding the principle of unjust enrichment. Despite arguments regarding the tentative pricing and excess credit reversal, the court found that the appellants did not meet the burden of proof to support their refund claim. The authorities correctly applied legal precedent, affirming that the duty incidence had been transferred to the buyers, making the refund claim invalid. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114879