https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47424 A refund claim under Notification No. 198/76-C.E. was governed by the law in force when the claim was actually determined, not by the law as it stood when the duty was paid. Because Section 11-B had been amended by then to incorporate the doctrine of unjust enrichment and bar refund where the duty burden had been passed on to buyers, the amended provision applied to the claim. The Court therefore upheld denial of cash refund and the direction to credit the amount to the relevant Fund, finding no infirmity in the order. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47424 A refund claim under Notification No. 198/76-C.E. was governed by the law in force when the claim was actually determined, not by the law as it stood when the duty was paid. Because Section 11-B had been amended by then to incorporate the doctrine of unjust enrichment and bar refund where the duty burden had been passed on to buyers, the amended provision applied to the claim. The Court therefore upheld denial of cash refund and the direction to credit the amount to the relevant Fund, finding no infirmity in the order. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47424