https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208095 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner(Appeals) as the company failed to prove that the burden was not passed on to consumers. Despite the company's argument that the deposit was a security amount, not a duty, the Tribunal found that the amount was paid as excise duty based on supporting documents. Citing the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, applying Sec.11B of the Central Excise Act to the case. en-us Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2013 15:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208095 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim by the Commissioner(Appeals) as the company failed to prove that the burden was not passed on to consumers. Despite the company's argument that the deposit was a security amount, not a duty, the Tribunal found that the amount was paid as excise duty based on supporting documents. Citing the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, applying Sec.11B of the Central Excise Act to the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208095