https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352046 Refund of central excise duty was denied because no record showed provisional assessment or its finalisation, so Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not apply. Payment under protest and compliance with Rule 233B did not displace the statutory refund requirements under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As there was no material to show that the duty incidence had not been passed on, the bar of unjust enrichment remained unaddressed. The refund claim was therefore not admissible and the challenge to the appellate order failed. en-us Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2017 08:00:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352046 Refund of central excise duty was denied because no record showed provisional assessment or its finalisation, so Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not apply. Payment under protest and compliance with Rule 233B did not displace the statutory refund requirements under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As there was no material to show that the duty incidence had not been passed on, the bar of unjust enrichment remained unaddressed. The refund claim was therefore not admissible and the challenge to the appellate order failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352046