https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346102 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to disallow refund claims totaling Rs. 7,01,241/- and Rs. 6,11,387/- due to unjust enrichment. The appellant failed to demonstrate that excess duty paid was not recovered from buyers, as evidenced by the absence of Range Officer verification and unclear excise duty mention in sale invoices. Compliance with Rule 7 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment were central to the ruling, emphasizing the need to establish duty not borne by buyers. The judgment dismissed the appeals, highlighting the appellant's inability to refute duty recovery by buyers, resulting in the denial of the refund claims. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346102 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to disallow refund claims totaling Rs. 7,01,241/- and Rs. 6,11,387/- due to unjust enrichment. The appellant failed to demonstrate that excess duty paid was not recovered from buyers, as evidenced by the absence of Range Officer verification and unclear excise duty mention in sale invoices. Compliance with Rule 7 and the doctrine of unjust enrichment were central to the ruling, emphasizing the need to establish duty not borne by buyers. The judgment dismissed the appeals, highlighting the appellant's inability to refute duty recovery by buyers, resulting in the denial of the refund claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346102