https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30924 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI rejected refund claims based on unjust enrichment principles, emphasizing the need to demonstrate non-passing of duty burden to consumers for eligibility. Despite arguments that duty payment occurred post-assessment, the tribunal upheld the rejection, citing the Apex Court's precedent. The appellants were found to have passed on duty burden to another entity, leading to the appeal's dismissal. The judgment highlights the doctrine's importance, requiring proof of non-transfer of duty burden to consumers for refund qualification, even post-provisional assessment finalization. en-us Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30924 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI rejected refund claims based on unjust enrichment principles, emphasizing the need to demonstrate non-passing of duty burden to consumers for eligibility. Despite arguments that duty payment occurred post-assessment, the tribunal upheld the rejection, citing the Apex Court's precedent. The appellants were found to have passed on duty burden to another entity, leading to the appeal's dismissal. The judgment highlights the doctrine's importance, requiring proof of non-transfer of duty burden to consumers for refund qualification, even post-provisional assessment finalization. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30924