https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204348 Refund of duty on returned goods under Rule 173-L was found admissible because unjust enrichment was not proved: the assessee produced declarations, transport records, debit and credit notes, and rejection letters showing no sale and no passing on of duty. The presumption under Section 12B is rebuttable, and the fact-finding authorities accepted evidence rebutting it. The department also could not reopen a concluded refund by issuing a fresh notice years later in collateral proceedings, since the earlier appellate determination had become final and the recovery action was held time-barred. The assessee's refund entitlement was sustained. en-us Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204348 Refund of duty on returned goods under Rule 173-L was found admissible because unjust enrichment was not proved: the assessee produced declarations, transport records, debit and credit notes, and rejection letters showing no sale and no passing on of duty. The presumption under Section 12B is rebuttable, and the fact-finding authorities accepted evidence rebutting it. The department also could not reopen a concluded refund by issuing a fresh notice years later in collateral proceedings, since the earlier appellate determination had become final and the recovery action was held time-barred. The assessee's refund entitlement was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204348