https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212575 A refund claim withdrawn after defects were pointed out was treated as a fresh claim, not a continuation of the original application, so limitation ran from the later filing date and the refund was barred for the earlier period. For excise-duty refund under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, the claimant had to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on; credit notes and post-clearance events could be relevant to rebut unjust enrichment. Applying that principle, refund was allowed for the relevant periods where non-passing of the burden was established, but denied for the time-barred portion. en-us Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212575 A refund claim withdrawn after defects were pointed out was treated as a fresh claim, not a continuation of the original application, so limitation ran from the later filing date and the refund was barred for the earlier period. For excise-duty refund under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, the claimant had to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on; credit notes and post-clearance events could be relevant to rebut unjust enrichment. Applying that principle, refund was allowed for the relevant periods where non-passing of the burden was established, but denied for the time-barred portion. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212575