https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263371 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund amount debited in RG-23C Part-II for re-credit of cenvat credit. The Tribunal found that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence of duty payment, indicating no unjust enrichment, and distinguished cited legal precedents as not applicable to the case. They emphasized that the demand arose from differential duty in each invoice, paid post-clearance of goods, and not due to price variation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. en-us Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Sep 2015 07:35:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263371 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the refund amount debited in RG-23C Part-II for re-credit of cenvat credit. The Tribunal found that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence of duty payment, indicating no unjust enrichment, and distinguished cited legal precedents as not applicable to the case. They emphasized that the demand arose from differential duty in each invoice, paid post-clearance of goods, and not due to price variation. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263371