https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34857 The appeal was successful as the burden of proof against unjust enrichment was rebutted by the assessee through issuing a credit note to the buyer post-clearance of goods. The High Court cited precedent indicating that if the price of goods is reduced post-credit note issuance, duty incidence is not passed on, shifting the burden to the Revenue to disprove the claim. As the buyer declined to accept the duty burden within the credit period and the assessee issued a credit note crediting the duty amount to the buyer, unjust enrichment was avoided. The refund claim was allowed, and the appeal was granted. en-us Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34857 The appeal was successful as the burden of proof against unjust enrichment was rebutted by the assessee through issuing a credit note to the buyer post-clearance of goods. The High Court cited precedent indicating that if the price of goods is reduced post-credit note issuance, duty incidence is not passed on, shifting the burden to the Revenue to disprove the claim. As the buyer declined to accept the duty burden within the credit period and the assessee issued a credit note crediting the duty amount to the buyer, unjust enrichment was avoided. The refund claim was allowed, and the appeal was granted. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34857