https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122467 The court upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, affirming that the principle of unjust enrichment applies, and the burden of proving that the duty was not passed on lies with the appellant. The court found that the Revenue was entitled to enforce the bank guarantees and that the appellants failed to establish that they had not passed on the duty burden to consumers. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:29:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122467 The court upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, affirming that the principle of unjust enrichment applies, and the burden of proving that the duty was not passed on lies with the appellant. The court found that the Revenue was entitled to enforce the bank guarantees and that the appellants failed to establish that they had not passed on the duty burden to consumers. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122467