https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448420 CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appellant's refund claim for excess central excise duty paid. The tribunal held that a CA certificate alone was insufficient evidence to establish non-applicability of unjust enrichment principles. The appellant failed to produce adequate evidence before the Central Excise authority to prove that duty incidence was not passed on to customers. Following precedent from Madras HC in Commissioner of Customs v. BPL Ltd., the tribunal confirmed that substantial evidence beyond chartered accountant certification is required for refund claims. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld as justified. en-us Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jan 2024 08:47:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448420 CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appellant's refund claim for excess central excise duty paid. The tribunal held that a CA certificate alone was insufficient evidence to establish non-applicability of unjust enrichment principles. The appellant failed to produce adequate evidence before the Central Excise authority to prove that duty incidence was not passed on to customers. Following precedent from Madras HC in Commissioner of Customs v. BPL Ltd., the tribunal confirmed that substantial evidence beyond chartered accountant certification is required for refund claims. The rejection of the refund claim was upheld as justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 17 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448420