https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443436 The court rejected the appellant's refund claim of Excise Duty due to a change in abatement percentage, citing insufficient evidence to prove that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. The appellant's reliance on a Chartered Accountant's certificate without independent verification and lack of clarity on the components of varied taxes led to the rejection of the claim. The court emphasized the importance of transparency in abatement calculations to avoid unjust enrichment, ultimately finding no merit in the appeal and upholding the lower authorities' decision. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443436 The court rejected the appellant's refund claim of Excise Duty due to a change in abatement percentage, citing insufficient evidence to prove that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. The appellant's reliance on a Chartered Accountant's certificate without independent verification and lack of clarity on the components of varied taxes led to the rejection of the claim. The court emphasized the importance of transparency in abatement calculations to avoid unjust enrichment, ultimately finding no merit in the appeal and upholding the lower authorities' decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443436