https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123426 The appeal stemmed from the denial of a refund claim of Rs. 18,42,29,613/- by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), upheld by the Asstt. Commissioner, due to unjust enrichment. The Tribunal ruled that the burden of proving non-passing of duty burden to buyers was not met, remanding the issue for further evidence. However, the assessees were granted interest on delayed refund claims from July 1996 onwards. The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing substantial evidence to support refund claims and the burden of proof on appellants to establish unjust enrichment. en-us Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:26:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123426 The appeal stemmed from the denial of a refund claim of Rs. 18,42,29,613/- by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), upheld by the Asstt. Commissioner, due to unjust enrichment. The Tribunal ruled that the burden of proving non-passing of duty burden to buyers was not met, remanding the issue for further evidence. However, the assessees were granted interest on delayed refund claims from July 1996 onwards. The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing substantial evidence to support refund claims and the burden of proof on appellants to establish unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123426