https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2167 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and disposing of the Respondent's cross-objection. The refund claim for excise duty on poles used for electrification work in rural areas was allowed as it was determined that there was no passing on of the duty incidence to customers due to the specific circumstances of the case, including the poles not being sold to others and the absence of transfer of ownership under certain schemes. The Tribunal found that the refund claim should not be rejected based on the schemes mentioned and concluded that there was no unjust enrichment in this case. en-us Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2167 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and disposing of the Respondent's cross-objection. The refund claim for excise duty on poles used for electrification work in rural areas was allowed as it was determined that there was no passing on of the duty incidence to customers due to the specific circumstances of the case, including the poles not being sold to others and the absence of transfer of ownership under certain schemes. The Tribunal found that the refund claim should not be rejected based on the schemes mentioned and concluded that there was no unjust enrichment in this case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2167