https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351945 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal on the grounds of unjust enrichment in the context of duty payment and refund claims under Section 11B of the Excise Act. Despite the appellant's argument that refund claims were not hit by unjust enrichment due to deposits made under protest and agreements with buyers, the Tribunal found that the appellant had passed on the duty incidence to the buyers, rendering them ineligible for the refund. The case highlighted the importance of meeting the requirements of Section 11B and avoiding unjust enrichment in refund claims related to duty payments. en-us Mon, 06 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Mar 2019 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351945 The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal on the grounds of unjust enrichment in the context of duty payment and refund claims under Section 11B of the Excise Act. Despite the appellant's argument that refund claims were not hit by unjust enrichment due to deposits made under protest and agreements with buyers, the Tribunal found that the appellant had passed on the duty incidence to the buyers, rendering them ineligible for the refund. The case highlighted the importance of meeting the requirements of Section 11B and avoiding unjust enrichment in refund claims related to duty payments. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351945