https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331638 Refund under Notification No. 108/95-CE was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the project contractor did not collect excise duty from NHAI and the contract documents, together with the NHAI certificate, supported that factual finding. A fixed-price contract, by itself, was insufficient to prove that the duty burden had been passed on. In the absence of any contrary material from Revenue, the record showed that the incidence of duty had not been transferred to the recipient, so the unjust enrichment objection failed and the refund entitlement was sustained. en-us Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Nov 2016 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331638 Refund under Notification No. 108/95-CE was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where the project contractor did not collect excise duty from NHAI and the contract documents, together with the NHAI certificate, supported that factual finding. A fixed-price contract, by itself, was insufficient to prove that the duty burden had been passed on. In the absence of any contrary material from Revenue, the record showed that the incidence of duty had not been transferred to the recipient, so the unjust enrichment objection failed and the refund entitlement was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331638