https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187566 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. It was determined that the excess duty payment was not passed on to the buyer, supported by accounting entries and certificates from both parties. The Tribunal found that the duty incidence was borne by the appellant due to a computer error, and the buyer had not availed cenvat credit. Consequently, the appellant was granted the refund with consequential benefits. en-us Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Aug 2017 15:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187566 The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the rejection of the refund claim based on unjust enrichment. It was determined that the excess duty payment was not passed on to the buyer, supported by accounting entries and certificates from both parties. The Tribunal found that the duty incidence was borne by the appellant due to a computer error, and the buyer had not availed cenvat credit. Consequently, the appellant was granted the refund with consequential benefits. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187566