https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352060 Refund of excise duty on captively consumed yarn was not barred by unjust enrichment where departmental cost verification and the cost accountant's report showed that the duty incidence had not been passed on and had been absorbed by the assessee. In the absence of contrary material, captive consumption alone did not defeat the refund claim. The Tribunal also held that limitation could not be used to reject the refund when it was not proposed in the show cause notice or raised before the first appellate authority; the Revenue could not introduce a fresh time-bar objection at that stage. The assessee's refund claims were therefore allowed and the Revenue's objections failed. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352060 Refund of excise duty on captively consumed yarn was not barred by unjust enrichment where departmental cost verification and the cost accountant's report showed that the duty incidence had not been passed on and had been absorbed by the assessee. In the absence of contrary material, captive consumption alone did not defeat the refund claim. The Tribunal also held that limitation could not be used to reject the refund when it was not proposed in the show cause notice or raised before the first appellate authority; the Revenue could not introduce a fresh time-bar objection at that stage. The assessee's refund claims were therefore allowed and the Revenue's objections failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352060