https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115095 A refund claim was rejected because the claimant failed to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. Even though the goods were manufactured on behalf of another entity and duty had been paid in that context, the bar of unjust enrichment still applied unless supported by documentary evidence showing that the incidence of duty remained with the claimant. Mere affidavits were held insufficient to discharge that burden, and cited precedents were treated as fact-specific or based on remand with evidence. The refund claim therefore failed for lack of proof against unjust enrichment. en-us Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 May 2012 17:11:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115095 A refund claim was rejected because the claimant failed to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers. Even though the goods were manufactured on behalf of another entity and duty had been paid in that context, the bar of unjust enrichment still applied unless supported by documentary evidence showing that the incidence of duty remained with the claimant. Mere affidavits were held insufficient to discharge that burden, and cited precedents were treated as fact-specific or based on remand with evidence. The refund claim therefore failed for lack of proof against unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115095