https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267889 The appeals, arising from a common Order-in-Appeal, involved the finalization of provisional assessment for a specific period. The refund claims were rejected under the unjust enrichment clause due to lack of evidence proving discharge of duty incidence. The Lower Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, emphasizing the necessity of evidence to validate refund claims. As a result, all six appeals were dismissed, affirming the rejection of refund claims based on unjust enrichment criteria. en-us Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Nov 2015 07:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267889 The appeals, arising from a common Order-in-Appeal, involved the finalization of provisional assessment for a specific period. The refund claims were rejected under the unjust enrichment clause due to lack of evidence proving discharge of duty incidence. The Lower Appellate Authority upheld the rejection, emphasizing the necessity of evidence to validate refund claims. As a result, all six appeals were dismissed, affirming the rejection of refund claims based on unjust enrichment criteria. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267889