https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368850 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund application. The appellant, a dealer of excisable goods, filed a refund claim within the prescribed time limit after a favorable adjudication order. The tribunal deemed the claim maintainable, considering the relevant date as the date of the favorable order. The appellant demonstrated compliance with the doctrine of unjust enrichment by showing that the excise duty paid had not been passed on to buyers. As a result, the tribunal granted the refund, finding no merit in upholding the rejection based on limitation and unjust enrichment. en-us Fri, 06 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:43:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368850 The tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection of the refund application. The appellant, a dealer of excisable goods, filed a refund claim within the prescribed time limit after a favorable adjudication order. The tribunal deemed the claim maintainable, considering the relevant date as the date of the favorable order. The appellant demonstrated compliance with the doctrine of unjust enrichment by showing that the excise duty paid had not been passed on to buyers. As a result, the tribunal granted the refund, finding no merit in upholding the rejection based on limitation and unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368850