https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193894 Refund of indirect excise duty was refused because the claim was made after substantial delay and the petitioners did not prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to consumers. The Court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment and held that refund in writ jurisdiction is unavailable unless the claimant produces satisfactory evidence of non-passing of the tax incidence. A procedural objection that the hearing authority and deciding authority were different was also rejected, as the successor authority had considered the record and no prejudice was shown. The dismissal of the refund petitions was upheld. en-us Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:36:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193894 Refund of indirect excise duty was refused because the claim was made after substantial delay and the petitioners did not prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to consumers. The Court applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment and held that refund in writ jurisdiction is unavailable unless the claimant produces satisfactory evidence of non-passing of the tax incidence. A procedural objection that the hearing authority and deciding authority were different was also rejected, as the successor authority had considered the record and no prejudice was shown. The dismissal of the refund petitions was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193894