https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1487 The refund claim was subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, so the assessee had to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B that excise duty had been passed on to customers. Mere price uniformity before and after the relevant period was held insufficient to displace that presumption, and the invoices showing levy of central excise duty under the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZQ supported recovery of the duty element from buyers. On that material, the presumption remained unrebutted, and the refund was rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. en-us Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1487 The refund claim was subject to the doctrine of unjust enrichment, so the assessee had to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 12B that excise duty had been passed on to customers. Mere price uniformity before and after the relevant period was held insufficient to displace that presumption, and the invoices showing levy of central excise duty under the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZQ supported recovery of the duty element from buyers. On that material, the presumption remained unrebutted, and the refund was rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1487