https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44409 Refund claims under excise law could not be rejected merely because they were filed beyond the prescribed six-month period, as the Court followed the view that limitation should not be used to defeat an otherwise just claim. The petitioners were therefore entitled to refund on that ground. However, refund remained subject to the proviso to Section 11B embodying unjust enrichment, and the authorities were permitted to re-examine whether the duty burden had been passed on to consumers. Refund could be denied only if that statutory condition was satisfied. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 10:39:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44409 Refund claims under excise law could not be rejected merely because they were filed beyond the prescribed six-month period, as the Court followed the view that limitation should not be used to defeat an otherwise just claim. The petitioners were therefore entitled to refund on that ground. However, refund remained subject to the proviso to Section 11B embodying unjust enrichment, and the authorities were permitted to re-examine whether the duty burden had been passed on to consumers. Refund could be denied only if that statutory condition was satisfied. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 04 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44409