https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47004 A refund claim arising from duty collected on an erroneous view of excisability was treated as outside the limitation provisions in Rule 11 and Rule 173(J), because the payment was compulsorily recovered by the Revenue rather than made by the assessee under its own mistake. The later administrative clarification showed the levy was unsustainable, and a cut-off date tied to that clarification was held misconceived. However, the claim failed on unjust enrichment: a refund of indirect tax is not allowable unless the claimant proves that the duty burden was not passed on, and the Court accepted that the burden had entered the cost of the goods. The refund was therefore rejected. en-us Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jun 2024 19:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47004 A refund claim arising from duty collected on an erroneous view of excisability was treated as outside the limitation provisions in Rule 11 and Rule 173(J), because the payment was compulsorily recovered by the Revenue rather than made by the assessee under its own mistake. The later administrative clarification showed the levy was unsustainable, and a cut-off date tied to that clarification was held misconceived. However, the claim failed on unjust enrichment: a refund of indirect tax is not allowable unless the claimant proves that the duty burden was not passed on, and the Court accepted that the burden had entered the cost of the goods. The refund was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47004