https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327855 Refund of a duty pre-deposit could not be rejected merely because the original TR 6 Challan was unavailable where correspondence and other record showed the deposit and the department had not independently verified payment. The claim was treated as not time barred because limitation for refund of a pre-deposit runs from final settlement of the dispute, not from the original date of payment. On unjust enrichment, the record did not conclusively show that the duty burden had been passed on, particularly where the payment was made during litigation and the price was under an administered mechanism. The matter was remanded for fresh verification on payment, limitation, and unjust enrichment. en-us Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Dec 2016 11:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327855 Refund of a duty pre-deposit could not be rejected merely because the original TR 6 Challan was unavailable where correspondence and other record showed the deposit and the department had not independently verified payment. The claim was treated as not time barred because limitation for refund of a pre-deposit runs from final settlement of the dispute, not from the original date of payment. On unjust enrichment, the record did not conclusively show that the duty burden had been passed on, particularly where the payment was made during litigation and the price was under an administered mechanism. The matter was remanded for fresh verification on payment, limitation, and unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327855