https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334032 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the classification and dutiability of coated steel bars, stating that the coating process by the job worker does not result in the manufacture of excisable goods. The appellants' refund claims for duty paid were initially discharged by the job worker but rejected as time-barred without addressing unjust enrichment. The case was remanded for further examination of evidence to determine if duty incidence was passed on to customers. The lack of detailed findings by authorities led to the remand for a comprehensive analysis of all evidence. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334032 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the classification and dutiability of coated steel bars, stating that the coating process by the job worker does not result in the manufacture of excisable goods. The appellants' refund claims for duty paid were initially discharged by the job worker but rejected as time-barred without addressing unjust enrichment. The case was remanded for further examination of evidence to determine if duty incidence was passed on to customers. The lack of detailed findings by authorities led to the remand for a comprehensive analysis of all evidence. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334032