https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242198 The appellant's refund claim for duty paid from 30.11.95 to 31.03.2002 was rejected on merit and unjust enrichment grounds. Despite a favorable decision on merit, the appellant's failure to prove non-recovery of duty from customers led to the rejection of the appeal. The appellant's practice of reducing product costs along with leviable excise duty indicated unjust enrichment, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. The judgment emphasized that the burden of proving non-recovery was not discharged, leading to the rejection of the appeal. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, including the cross objection filed by the appellant against the Revenue's appeal. en-us Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2014 10:34:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242198 The appellant's refund claim for duty paid from 30.11.95 to 31.03.2002 was rejected on merit and unjust enrichment grounds. Despite a favorable decision on merit, the appellant's failure to prove non-recovery of duty from customers led to the rejection of the appeal. The appellant's practice of reducing product costs along with leviable excise duty indicated unjust enrichment, resulting in the dismissal of their appeal. The judgment emphasized that the burden of proving non-recovery was not discharged, leading to the rejection of the appeal. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly, including the cross objection filed by the appellant against the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242198