https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769663 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection order. The case involved refund of excise duty paid on investment subsidy adjusted against VAT and CST returns. The appellant had paid the disputed amount under protest while the excisability issue was pending adjudication before the Tribunal. CESTAT held that since the amount was paid under protest after goods clearance and the liability was subsequently set aside, the burden could not be passed to customers. Therefore, unjust enrichment principles were not applicable, distinguishing it from cases where amounts are shown as expenses in profit and loss accounts. en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Apr 2025 08:37:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769663 CESTAT NEW DELHI allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund rejection order. The case involved refund of excise duty paid on investment subsidy adjusted against VAT and CST returns. The appellant had paid the disputed amount under protest while the excisability issue was pending adjudication before the Tribunal. CESTAT held that since the amount was paid under protest after goods clearance and the liability was subsequently set aside, the burden could not be passed to customers. Therefore, unjust enrichment principles were not applicable, distinguishing it from cases where amounts are shown as expenses in profit and loss accounts. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769663