https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466663 The article addresses whether a refund under Section 11B could be paid to the claimant rather than credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, focusing on proof against unjust enrichment. The governing principle applied is that refund entitlement requires demonstration that the incidence of higher duty was not passed on; this required production of buyer-wise ledgers on remand. The claimant repeatedly failed to produce those ledgers, and the factual finding that unjust enrichment was not disproven rests on that evidentiary absence and non-compliance with remand directions, resulting in crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. en-us Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Feb 2026 20:10:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466663 The article addresses whether a refund under Section 11B could be paid to the claimant rather than credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, focusing on proof against unjust enrichment. The governing principle applied is that refund entitlement requires demonstration that the incidence of higher duty was not passed on; this required production of buyer-wise ledgers on remand. The claimant repeatedly failed to produce those ledgers, and the factual finding that unjust enrichment was not disproven rests on that evidentiary absence and non-compliance with remand directions, resulting in crediting the refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466663