https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381106 The Tribunal confirmed the demand for excess Excise Duty of &8377; 22,38,028/- against the appellant due to unjust enrichment. The appellant's appeal, involving pesticide manufacturing, was a second round of litigation with a previous remand order for de-novo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of submitting all relevant evidence during adjudication. The appellant's failure to prove non-passing of the duty burden led to the denial of a refund. The matter was remanded for a comprehensive reevaluation, including consideration of the C.A. Certificate, to ensure a well-informed decision on the excess Excise Duty issue. en-us Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Jun 2019 07:56:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381106 The Tribunal confirmed the demand for excess Excise Duty of &8377; 22,38,028/- against the appellant due to unjust enrichment. The appellant's appeal, involving pesticide manufacturing, was a second round of litigation with a previous remand order for de-novo adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of submitting all relevant evidence during adjudication. The appellant's failure to prove non-passing of the duty burden led to the denial of a refund. The matter was remanded for a comprehensive reevaluation, including consideration of the C.A. Certificate, to ensure a well-informed decision on the excess Excise Duty issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 06 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381106