https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1311 Whether duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer was treated as a factual determination, not a referable question of law. Concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal showed that the disputed duty was paid after clearance of the goods and from the assessee's own pocket, rebutting the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment. On that basis, the refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment, and no legal infirmity was shown to justify a reference. The Revenue's application was dismissed. en-us Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1311 Whether duty incidence had been passed on to the buyer was treated as a factual determination, not a referable question of law. Concurrent findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal showed that the disputed duty was paid after clearance of the goods and from the assessee's own pocket, rebutting the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment. On that basis, the refund was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment, and no legal infirmity was shown to justify a reference. The Revenue's application was dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 22 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1311