https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45873 Refund of duty is not admissible unless the claimant proves that the duty incidence was not passed on, directly or indirectly, to customers. The governing test is unjust enrichment: mere proof of payment is insufficient where the duty on raw material forms part of the price of the finished goods, because the burden is treated as passed on to the purchaser. On the facts stated, the duty burden on chlorine was passed on, so the refund claim was rejected. en-us Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:11:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45873 Refund of duty is not admissible unless the claimant proves that the duty incidence was not passed on, directly or indirectly, to customers. The governing test is unjust enrichment: mere proof of payment is insufficient where the duty on raw material forms part of the price of the finished goods, because the burden is treated as passed on to the purchaser. On the facts stated, the duty burden on chlorine was passed on, so the refund claim was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 16 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45873