https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348112 The appeals were dismissed as the appellant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the education cess paid was not passed on to customers, resulting in unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the appellant's accounts indicated the cess was included in prices charged to customers, and the burden to prove otherwise was not met. Refund claims were rejected based on unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Act, as the appellant did not adequately show that customers did not bear the duty incidence. The appeals were deemed lacking in merit, and the original authority's decision to reject the refund claims was upheld. en-us Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Sep 2017 08:59:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348112 The appeals were dismissed as the appellant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the education cess paid was not passed on to customers, resulting in unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the appellant's accounts indicated the cess was included in prices charged to customers, and the burden to prove otherwise was not met. Refund claims were rejected based on unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Act, as the appellant did not adequately show that customers did not bear the duty incidence. The appeals were deemed lacking in merit, and the original authority's decision to reject the refund claims was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348112