https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376762 Refund under the Central Excise Act was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where duty had been paid under protest and the classification dispute had already been settled in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal accepted contemporaneous documentary evidence, including prior declarations, invoices, a Chartered Accountant certificate and balance-sheet entries showing the duty as receivable, as proof that the duty incidence was not passed on. It found that the lower authority rejected this evidence without cogent reasons and failed to conduct a proper evidentiary analysis. The refund rejection was therefore set aside, and the assessee was held entitled to refund with applicable interest. en-us Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2019 08:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376762 Refund under the Central Excise Act was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment where duty had been paid under protest and the classification dispute had already been settled in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal accepted contemporaneous documentary evidence, including prior declarations, invoices, a Chartered Accountant certificate and balance-sheet entries showing the duty as receivable, as proof that the duty incidence was not passed on. It found that the lower authority rejected this evidence without cogent reasons and failed to conduct a proper evidentiary analysis. The refund rejection was therefore set aside, and the assessee was held entitled to refund with applicable interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376762