https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126323 The judgment upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claims as the appellants failed to demonstrate that the excess duty paid had not been passed on to their customers. The burden of proof under Section 12B required the appellants to establish non-passing through their accounts and pricing structures, which they failed to do. The legal precedents cited emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to support refund claims and avoid unjust enrichment. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2012 15:49:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126323 The judgment upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claims as the appellants failed to demonstrate that the excess duty paid had not been passed on to their customers. The burden of proof under Section 12B required the appellants to establish non-passing through their accounts and pricing structures, which they failed to do. The legal precedents cited emphasized the importance of providing concrete evidence to support refund claims and avoid unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126323