https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4239 A pre-deposit made during the pendency of an appeal is not payment of duty, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar refund of that amount. Even if the sum is treated as duty, a finding that it was paid after clearance of goods, coupled with no challenge to that finding, is sufficient to show that the duty incidence was not passed on. The refund was therefore payable, and the appeal was rejected. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4239 A pre-deposit made during the pendency of an appeal is not payment of duty, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar refund of that amount. Even if the sum is treated as duty, a finding that it was paid after clearance of goods, coupled with no challenge to that finding, is sufficient to show that the duty incidence was not passed on. The refund was therefore payable, and the appeal was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4239