https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245474 Refund of differential excise duty was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment because the statutory presumption under Section 12B stood rebutted on the facts. The duty had been paid under protest after the assessee stated that it would not pass on the burden and would seek refund if successful. The record showed no increase in maximum retail price or wholesale price, and the balance sheet treated the amount as excise duty recoverable from the revenue authorities. The department's finding that the incidence had been passed on was therefore unsupported, and the refund claim was allowed. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:51:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245474 Refund of differential excise duty was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment because the statutory presumption under Section 12B stood rebutted on the facts. The duty had been paid under protest after the assessee stated that it would not pass on the burden and would seek refund if successful. The record showed no increase in maximum retail price or wholesale price, and the balance sheet treated the amount as excise duty recoverable from the revenue authorities. The department's finding that the incidence had been passed on was therefore unsupported, and the refund claim was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245474