https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122281 The appeal was rejected as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the excess duty incidence was not passed on to others, leading to a denial of the refund claim. Both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the burden of proof was on the appellant to show that the excess duty was not passed on, despite the appellant's arguments and evidence presented. The lack of conclusive evidence resulted in the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims in refund cases involving duty payments. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122281 The appeal was rejected as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the excess duty incidence was not passed on to others, leading to a denial of the refund claim. Both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the burden of proof was on the appellant to show that the excess duty was not passed on, despite the appellant's arguments and evidence presented. The lack of conclusive evidence resulted in the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of substantiating claims in refund cases involving duty payments. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122281