https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349509 A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 succeeds only if the claimant proves both payment of tax and that its incidence was not passed on to another person. The Bombay HC applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment and held that the burden remained on the assessee to establish absence of passing on. Credit notes and ledger entries issued after payment were insufficient by themselves, because they did not conclusively show that the service tax burden had not moved further down the chain. The refund was therefore barred by unjust enrichment. en-us Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 16:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349509 A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 succeeds only if the claimant proves both payment of tax and that its incidence was not passed on to another person. The Bombay HC applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment and held that the burden remained on the assessee to establish absence of passing on. Credit notes and ledger entries issued after payment were insufficient by themselves, because they did not conclusively show that the service tax burden had not moved further down the chain. The refund was therefore barred by unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Service Tax Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349509