https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348172 Refund of excise duty was denied where the invoices showed duty separately charged and recovered from the buyer, indicating that the incidence had been passed on. A Chartered Accountant's certificate was held insufficient against the documentary record, and the claimant also failed to produce reliable evidence that buyers had not taken Cenvat credit on the duty reflected in the invoices. The cited precedent was found inapplicable on the facts. The article states that, in such circumstances, the bar of unjust enrichment is not rebutted and refund is not admissible. en-us Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Sep 2017 17:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348172 Refund of excise duty was denied where the invoices showed duty separately charged and recovered from the buyer, indicating that the incidence had been passed on. A Chartered Accountant's certificate was held insufficient against the documentary record, and the claimant also failed to produce reliable evidence that buyers had not taken Cenvat credit on the duty reflected in the invoices. The cited precedent was found inapplicable on the facts. The article states that, in such circumstances, the bar of unjust enrichment is not rebutted and refund is not admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348172