https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751379 The HC dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence in refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner, engaged in blending and bottling of liquor, failed to prove that the service tax liability was not passed on to consumers, thus invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Court held that determining whether the tax liability was passed on is a factual issue, not a legal one, and cannot be examined under Article 227 of the Constitution. The CESTAT's decision to grant a partial refund was upheld, underscoring the importance of evidentiary support in tax-related disputes. en-us Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:10:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751379 The HC dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence in refund claims under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner, engaged in blending and bottling of liquor, failed to prove that the service tax liability was not passed on to consumers, thus invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Court held that determining whether the tax liability was passed on is a factual issue, not a legal one, and cannot be examined under Article 227 of the Constitution. The CESTAT's decision to grant a partial refund was upheld, underscoring the importance of evidentiary support in tax-related disputes. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 27 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751379