https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393686 Refund claims for duty paid under the compounded levy scheme were not barred by unjust enrichment where contemporaneous invoices showed duty was recovered only on transaction value and the books separately recorded the duty component as an advance deposit recoverable from the Government. On those facts, the statutory presumption under section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that duty incidence had been passed on to buyers stood rebutted, and the refund was admissible. Reliance on general refund principles and authorities arising from different factual settings was held inapplicable. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the order allowing refund was sustained. en-us Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Mar 2020 10:46:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393686 Refund claims for duty paid under the compounded levy scheme were not barred by unjust enrichment where contemporaneous invoices showed duty was recovered only on transaction value and the books separately recorded the duty component as an advance deposit recoverable from the Government. On those facts, the statutory presumption under section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that duty incidence had been passed on to buyers stood rebutted, and the refund was admissible. Reliance on general refund principles and authorities arising from different factual settings was held inapplicable. The departmental challenge therefore failed, and the order allowing refund was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393686