https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345731 Amounts debited under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as compliance with a demand were treated as not constituting duty, so the statutory refund mechanism under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was inapplicable. On the limitation point, the refund claim was considered timely because the debit entries were made in January and February 2012, the favourable appellate order was passed on 13.03.2013, and the refund application was filed on 27.03.2013. The refund rejection orders were therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed. en-us Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Jul 2017 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345731 Amounts debited under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as compliance with a demand were treated as not constituting duty, so the statutory refund mechanism under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply and the doctrine of unjust enrichment was inapplicable. On the limitation point, the refund claim was considered timely because the debit entries were made in January and February 2012, the favourable appellate order was passed on 13.03.2013, and the refund application was filed on 27.03.2013. The refund rejection orders were therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345731