https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343129 The appeals were dismissed as the Member found that the appellant, acting as a jobworker, had already received the entire central excise duty amount from the principal manufacturer, leading to the application of the unjust enrichment principle. Despite the appellant's arguments and evidence, including a C.A. Certificate, the Member upheld the lower authorities' decision, citing precedents where similar issues were discussed. It was concluded that the duty amount claimed for refund had already been received from the principal manufacturer, thus justifying the rejection of the appeals. en-us Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 May 2017 07:50:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343129 The appeals were dismissed as the Member found that the appellant, acting as a jobworker, had already received the entire central excise duty amount from the principal manufacturer, leading to the application of the unjust enrichment principle. Despite the appellant's arguments and evidence, including a C.A. Certificate, the Member upheld the lower authorities' decision, citing precedents where similar issues were discussed. It was concluded that the duty amount claimed for refund had already been received from the principal manufacturer, thus justifying the rejection of the appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343129