https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219421 A pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is treated as a security deposit for hearing an appeal, not as duty recovered from buyers. Because there was no evidence that the burden of the deposit had been passed on to consumers, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not bar refund. Once the underlying demand and the order confirming it were set aside, the basis for retaining the pre-deposit disappeared, and refund could not be withheld. The departmental appeal therefore failed and refund of the amount was sustained in full. en-us Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219421 A pre-deposit made under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is treated as a security deposit for hearing an appeal, not as duty recovered from buyers. Because there was no evidence that the burden of the deposit had been passed on to consumers, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not bar refund. Once the underlying demand and the order confirming it were set aside, the basis for retaining the pre-deposit disappeared, and refund could not be withheld. The departmental appeal therefore failed and refund of the amount was sustained in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219421