https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234567 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The respondent's refund claim for excess paid Special Additional Duty was allowed, emphasizing that the burden of duty should not be presumed to be passed on without evidence. The court highlighted that issuing credit notes did not eliminate the bar of unjust enrichment. The judgment emphasized the need for evidence to counter false transactions and that inability to rebut evidence should not lead to assumptions of revenue pilferage. The decision was based on settled law and findings regarding unjust enrichment. en-us Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2013 21:00:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234567 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The respondent's refund claim for excess paid Special Additional Duty was allowed, emphasizing that the burden of duty should not be presumed to be passed on without evidence. The court highlighted that issuing credit notes did not eliminate the bar of unjust enrichment. The judgment emphasized the need for evidence to counter false transactions and that inability to rebut evidence should not lead to assumptions of revenue pilferage. The decision was based on settled law and findings regarding unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234567