https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201335 In a central excise refund claim, the claimant must rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B that the duty incidence was passed on to buyers and must affirmatively prove that unjust enrichment did not occur. A cost analysis certificate may be relevant evidence, but it is not conclusive by itself and must be supported by adequate material. On the facts, the evidence was insufficient and the later certificate could not cure the defect, so the refund claim failed. en-us Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:05:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201335 In a central excise refund claim, the claimant must rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B that the duty incidence was passed on to buyers and must affirmatively prove that unjust enrichment did not occur. A cost analysis certificate may be relevant evidence, but it is not conclusive by itself and must be supported by adequate material. On the facts, the evidence was insufficient and the later certificate could not cure the defect, so the refund claim failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201335