https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245690 The Supreme Court denied the appellant's refund claim for excise duty paid during a disputed manufacturing period, citing unjust enrichment due to changes in invoice patterns indicating duty collection from customers. The burden of proof to show duty was not passed on to customers rested with the appellant, who failed to provide evidence despite appealing to higher courts. The appeal was rejected based on established legal principles and precedents emphasizing the necessity of discharging the burden of proof in refund cases. en-us Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2014 10:32:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245690 The Supreme Court denied the appellant's refund claim for excise duty paid during a disputed manufacturing period, citing unjust enrichment due to changes in invoice patterns indicating duty collection from customers. The burden of proof to show duty was not passed on to customers rested with the appellant, who failed to provide evidence despite appealing to higher courts. The appeal was rejected based on established legal principles and precedents emphasizing the necessity of discharging the burden of proof in refund cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245690