https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=688 Concurrent factual findings that duty was paid under protest justified rejection of the limitation objection, and non-compliance with Rule 233B did not by itself displace that finding for refund purposes. The Court also accepted the evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on, including the composite fixed price, Chartered Accountant's certificate, and profit and loss account, so the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. As no perversity or material infirmity was shown in either finding, the Tribunal's refund order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=688 Concurrent factual findings that duty was paid under protest justified rejection of the limitation objection, and non-compliance with Rule 233B did not by itself displace that finding for refund purposes. The Court also accepted the evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on, including the composite fixed price, Chartered Accountant's certificate, and profit and loss account, so the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply. As no perversity or material infirmity was shown in either finding, the Tribunal's refund order was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=688