https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356783 The appellant, a manufacturer of computer peripherals, utilized provisional assessment due to discounts given to distributors. The excise duty returned to buyers was initially refunded but later directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund for unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, referencing the S.Kumar's Ltd case. The appellant's refund claim evidence was rejected, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal. Citing the Apex Court's ruling on unjust enrichment, the Tribunal granted a remand for the appellant to provide additional evidence. The appeal was allowed for further proceedings to determine unjust enrichment. en-us Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 06:57:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356783 The appellant, a manufacturer of computer peripherals, utilized provisional assessment due to discounts given to distributors. The excise duty returned to buyers was initially refunded but later directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund for unjust enrichment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, referencing the S.Kumar's Ltd case. The appellant's refund claim evidence was rejected, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal. Citing the Apex Court's ruling on unjust enrichment, the Tribunal granted a remand for the appellant to provide additional evidence. The appeal was allowed for further proceedings to determine unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356783