https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209293 The appeal was allowed for remand as the Tribunal found that the evidence of duty payment, crucial for the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, was not adequately considered. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted discrepancies in the evidence submitted by the respondent, indicating non-payment of duty against the original orders. The appellant's argument of possessing payment documents was not substantiated before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal remitted the matter back for a fresh review, emphasizing the need for evidence on duty payment and addressing unjust enrichment concerns. en-us Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209293 The appeal was allowed for remand as the Tribunal found that the evidence of duty payment, crucial for the refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, was not adequately considered. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted discrepancies in the evidence submitted by the respondent, indicating non-payment of duty against the original orders. The appellant's argument of possessing payment documents was not substantiated before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal remitted the matter back for a fresh review, emphasizing the need for evidence on duty payment and addressing unjust enrichment concerns. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209293