https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264209 The High Court allowed the appeal in a case involving provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, a pesticide manufacturer, claimed a refund of the differential amount due to trade discounts. The Court held that the trade discounts, passed on to wholesalers and not end customers, did not lead to unjust enrichment. Relying on judicial precedent, the Court determined that the refund could not be denied based on the principle of unjust enrichment, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264209 The High Court allowed the appeal in a case involving provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant, a pesticide manufacturer, claimed a refund of the differential amount due to trade discounts. The Court held that the trade discounts, passed on to wholesalers and not end customers, did not lead to unjust enrichment. Relying on judicial precedent, the Court determined that the refund could not be denied based on the principle of unjust enrichment, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264209