https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257445 The court upheld the Commissioner's order sanctioning a refund claim to the respondent, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The case involved differential duty payment by the respondent, paid under protest post-clearance, with the duty incidence not passed on to buyers. The judge distinguished the case from precedents cited by the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of proving duty passing on for unjust enrichment claims. Relying on legal precedents and specific case facts, the judge concluded in favor of the respondent due to the lack of evidence of duty incidence passing on to buyers. en-us Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2015 15:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257445 The court upheld the Commissioner's order sanctioning a refund claim to the respondent, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The case involved differential duty payment by the respondent, paid under protest post-clearance, with the duty incidence not passed on to buyers. The judge distinguished the case from precedents cited by the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of proving duty passing on for unjust enrichment claims. Relying on legal precedents and specific case facts, the judge concluded in favor of the respondent due to the lack of evidence of duty incidence passing on to buyers. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257445