https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247840 A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was held to fail on both limitation and unjust enrichment. The payment was not shown to have been made under the prescribed protest procedure, and it was not made under a court-directed interim order; the claim was also filed beyond the one-year limitation period. The later Finance Act amendment did not cure the delay. On unjust enrichment, the assessee did not rebut the statutory presumption, as the duty was not shown as receivable in the books and mere uniform pricing did not prove that the burden was not passed on. Refund was therefore not admissible. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247840 A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was held to fail on both limitation and unjust enrichment. The payment was not shown to have been made under the prescribed protest procedure, and it was not made under a court-directed interim order; the claim was also filed beyond the one-year limitation period. The later Finance Act amendment did not cure the delay. On unjust enrichment, the assessee did not rebut the statutory presumption, as the duty was not shown as receivable in the books and mere uniform pricing did not prove that the burden was not passed on. Refund was therefore not admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247840