https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50578 Duty discharged through RG 23A Part II was treated as payment of duty for refund purposes, so refund could not be refused merely because the duty was paid from the Modvat credit account. Where that account remained operative, the proper mode of restitution was re-credit in RG 23A Part II, not cash refund, because cash payment was confined to exceptional cases under the relevant rules. The discussion also notes that unjust enrichment did not defeat the claim where the duty incidence had been passed on to the customer, leaving refund admissible if otherwise legally due. en-us Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:52:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50578 Duty discharged through RG 23A Part II was treated as payment of duty for refund purposes, so refund could not be refused merely because the duty was paid from the Modvat credit account. Where that account remained operative, the proper mode of restitution was re-credit in RG 23A Part II, not cash refund, because cash payment was confined to exceptional cases under the relevant rules. The discussion also notes that unjust enrichment did not defeat the claim where the duty incidence had been passed on to the customer, leaving refund admissible if otherwise legally due. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50578