https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116827 Refund claims arising from a classification dispute were rejected as barred by limitation and by unjust enrichment because the assessee had passed the duty burden on to customers during the relevant period. Payment of duty under protest did not save the time-barred portions once the payment was treated as normal duty for limitation purposes, and section 11B applied. The Tribunal relied on price increases, recovery from buyers, and the refund application to conclude that the incidence of duty had been passed on. The alleged note-sheet order was rejected, and the amount already taken as Modvat credit did not justify refund. Any amount otherwise admissible was required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under section 12C. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:15:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116827 Refund claims arising from a classification dispute were rejected as barred by limitation and by unjust enrichment because the assessee had passed the duty burden on to customers during the relevant period. Payment of duty under protest did not save the time-barred portions once the payment was treated as normal duty for limitation purposes, and section 11B applied. The Tribunal relied on price increases, recovery from buyers, and the refund application to conclude that the incidence of duty had been passed on. The alleged note-sheet order was rejected, and the amount already taken as Modvat credit did not justify refund. Any amount otherwise admissible was required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund under section 12C. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116827