https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336869 The appellant filed a refund claim for excise duty wrongly paid, which was rejected based on unjust enrichment. The appellant demonstrated that the duty was not collected from the buyer and provided evidence to support their claim. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim and setting aside the order directing the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The judgment highlighted the significance of evidence in refund claims and distinguished cases where duty is collected from those where duty is not passed on to determine eligibility for refunds. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336869 The appellant filed a refund claim for excise duty wrongly paid, which was rejected based on unjust enrichment. The appellant demonstrated that the duty was not collected from the buyer and provided evidence to support their claim. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim and setting aside the order directing the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The judgment highlighted the significance of evidence in refund claims and distinguished cases where duty is collected from those where duty is not passed on to determine eligibility for refunds. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336869