https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215393 A consequential refund arising from an earlier order allowing the benefit of Notification No. 38/78-Cus, where duty had been paid under protest, was not denied merely because it followed the prior adjudication. The decisive issue remained unjust enrichment: the claimant had to prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on. As that burden was not discharged, the refund was required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and the challenge to the refund order failed. en-us Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215393 A consequential refund arising from an earlier order allowing the benefit of Notification No. 38/78-Cus, where duty had been paid under protest, was not denied merely because it followed the prior adjudication. The decisive issue remained unjust enrichment: the claimant had to prove that the duty incidence had not been passed on. As that burden was not discharged, the refund was required to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, and the challenge to the refund order failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215393