https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446566 A refund claim arising from disputed central excise duty could not be rejected on a bare presumption that duty was not paid under protest or that unjust enrichment applied. The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority had to comply with earlier remand directions and examine the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the factual assertion that no sale had taken place, because those matters were relevant to duty incidence and passing on of burden. It also noted that rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 became effective only from 11 May 1981, so the absence of a formal protest mechanism for the earlier period could not be applied mechanically. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Dec 2023 07:17:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446566 A refund claim arising from disputed central excise duty could not be rejected on a bare presumption that duty was not paid under protest or that unjust enrichment applied. The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority had to comply with earlier remand directions and examine the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the factual assertion that no sale had taken place, because those matters were relevant to duty incidence and passing on of burden. It also noted that rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 became effective only from 11 May 1981, so the absence of a formal protest mechanism for the earlier period could not be applied mechanically. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446566