https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122467 Refund of excise duty remains subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. A claimant must rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by proving, on evidence within its special knowledge, that the duty incidence was not passed on to any other person. Security of duty through bank guarantee does not by itself defeat unjust enrichment, particularly where the guarantee is enforced and the record contains no proof that the burden was retained by the claimant. Subsequent payment of duty does not automatically exclude the doctrine; the factual record must still establish that no passing on occurred. 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 Refund of excise duty remains subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment. A claimant must rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by proving, on evidence within its special knowledge, that the duty incidence was not passed on to any other person. Security of duty through bank guarantee does not by itself defeat unjust enrichment, particularly where the guarantee is enforced and the record contains no proof that the burden was retained by the claimant. Subsequent payment of duty does not automatically exclude the doctrine; the factual record must still establish that no passing on occurred. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122467