https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2187 The appellant's refund claim of Rs. 12,00,000 was initially rejected on the grounds of limitation, but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, ruling that limitation did not apply and remanded the case for consideration of unjust enrichment. Despite arguments on non-passing of duty incidence, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. The court found that duty payment for intermediate products, exempted under Section 11C, negated unjust enrichment, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's plea. The impugned order directing the refund to the consumer welfare fund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. en-us Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2187 The appellant's refund claim of Rs. 12,00,000 was initially rejected on the grounds of limitation, but the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, ruling that limitation did not apply and remanded the case for consideration of unjust enrichment. Despite arguments on non-passing of duty incidence, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. The court found that duty payment for intermediate products, exempted under Section 11C, negated unjust enrichment, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's plea. The impugned order directing the refund to the consumer welfare fund was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 25 Jun 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2187