https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116146 The case addressed the denial of a refund for unjust enrichment, focusing on the interpretation of uniformity in prices before and after duty payment. The dispute arose from conflicting Tribunal decisions regarding the passing on of duty incidence to buyers. The Division Bench was tasked with resolving the inconsistency and determining the applicability of previous judgments in clarifying the criteria for establishing non-passing of duty burden. The case highlighted the importance of demonstrating the non-transfer of duty burden to buyers through pricing mechanisms, ultimately seeking to establish a clear legal position on refund claims related to duty incidence. en-us Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:20:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116146 The case addressed the denial of a refund for unjust enrichment, focusing on the interpretation of uniformity in prices before and after duty payment. The dispute arose from conflicting Tribunal decisions regarding the passing on of duty incidence to buyers. The Division Bench was tasked with resolving the inconsistency and determining the applicability of previous judgments in clarifying the criteria for establishing non-passing of duty burden. The case highlighted the importance of demonstrating the non-transfer of duty burden to buyers through pricing mechanisms, ultimately seeking to establish a clear legal position on refund claims related to duty incidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116146