https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34157 A fact-based controversy under Section 35-G did not raise a substantial question of law because the dispute depended on findings already considered by the Tribunal, so the Revenue could not recast those findings as a legal issue. On refund, invoice particulars furnished under Rule 52A in compliance with the prescribed excise format did not, by themselves, establish that duty had been passed on to the buyer. The statutory disclosure therefore did not trigger unjust enrichment, and refund could not be denied on that basis. The appeal failed on both grounds. en-us Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34157 A fact-based controversy under Section 35-G did not raise a substantial question of law because the dispute depended on findings already considered by the Tribunal, so the Revenue could not recast those findings as a legal issue. On refund, invoice particulars furnished under Rule 52A in compliance with the prescribed excise format did not, by themselves, establish that duty had been passed on to the buyer. The statutory disclosure therefore did not trigger unjust enrichment, and refund could not be denied on that basis. The appeal failed on both grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34157