https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32825 The appeal against the rejection of the refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of unjust enrichment was dismissed by the Tribunal. Despite the appellant's arguments and evidence, including a certificate from the client, the Tribunal found that the burden of duty was passed on to the customers as the selling price was inclusive of duty. The appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption, coupled with the terms of the agreement holding them responsible for taxes, led to the rejection of the appeal. Various Tribunal decisions cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant, and the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of evidence showing non-passing of the tax burden to customers. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32825 The appeal against the rejection of the refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the ground of unjust enrichment was dismissed by the Tribunal. Despite the appellant's arguments and evidence, including a certificate from the client, the Tribunal found that the burden of duty was passed on to the customers as the selling price was inclusive of duty. The appellant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to rebut this presumption, coupled with the terms of the agreement holding them responsible for taxes, led to the rejection of the appeal. Various Tribunal decisions cited by the appellant were deemed irrelevant, and the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of evidence showing non-passing of the tax burden to customers. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32825