https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291844 The note explains that a refund claim under the Central Excise regime must satisfy Section 11B, including limitation and proof that the tax incidence was not passed on. It states that the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 35G(1) because the dispute did not concern the rate or value of goods, but the refund itself was time-barred since the tax had been finally paid and not under provisional assessment. It further notes that documentary proof of payment and rebuttal of the statutory presumption under Section 12B were required, and that account entries or post-clearance credit notes did not defeat unjust enrichment. The revenue appeal succeeded and the refund rejection was restored. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2021 12:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291844 The note explains that a refund claim under the Central Excise regime must satisfy Section 11B, including limitation and proof that the tax incidence was not passed on. It states that the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 35G(1) because the dispute did not concern the rate or value of goods, but the refund itself was time-barred since the tax had been finally paid and not under provisional assessment. It further notes that documentary proof of payment and rebuttal of the statutory presumption under Section 12B were required, and that account entries or post-clearance credit notes did not defeat unjust enrichment. The revenue appeal succeeded and the refund rejection was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291844