https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463202 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of the refund claim. The lower authorities failed to conclude that the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving that the tax burden was not passed on. The appellant's claim complied with the notification and section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly as the contracts were entered into before 1 March 2015 and the appellant was covered by an exemption from stamp duty requirements. The tribunal found that the authorities erred in not accepting the exemption claim, especially since the State was a party to the agreement and no evidence showed stamp duty liability arose. Consequently, the refund claim rejection was overturned, and the appellant was granted relief. en-us Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 19:00:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463202 The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the rejection of the refund claim. The lower authorities failed to conclude that the appellant did not discharge the onus of proving that the tax burden was not passed on. The appellant's claim complied with the notification and section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly as the contracts were entered into before 1 March 2015 and the appellant was covered by an exemption from stamp duty requirements. The tribunal found that the authorities erred in not accepting the exemption claim, especially since the State was a party to the agreement and no evidence showed stamp duty liability arose. Consequently, the refund claim rejection was overturned, and the appellant was granted relief. Case-Laws Service Tax Wed, 14 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463202