https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219817 The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, claimed exemption under Notification 8/03 but was asked to make a pre-deposit of duty during an investigation. Despite complying, their refund claim was rejected based on the unjust enrichment doctrine. The court found that as an SSI unit not collecting central excise duty from customers, the unjust enrichment doctrine did not apply. Moreover, since no show-cause notice was served, the lower authorities erred in rejecting the refund claim. The judgment deemed the lower order unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219817 The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, claimed exemption under Notification 8/03 but was asked to make a pre-deposit of duty during an investigation. Despite complying, their refund claim was rejected based on the unjust enrichment doctrine. The court found that as an SSI unit not collecting central excise duty from customers, the unjust enrichment doctrine did not apply. Moreover, since no show-cause notice was served, the lower authorities erred in rejecting the refund claim. The judgment deemed the lower order unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219817