https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51745 A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 succeeds only if the claimant proves that the incidence of duty was not passed on. Here, no satisfactory evidence showed that the duty burden was retained by the assessee, and the record indicated clearance of goods at cum-duty price, supporting transfer of incidence to buyers. The claim was therefore barred by unjust enrichment and denied on that ground. The limitation objection based on alleged protest was not disturbed, as the appellate finding on limitation was not challenged by the Revenue. en-us Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:06:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51745 A refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 succeeds only if the claimant proves that the incidence of duty was not passed on. Here, no satisfactory evidence showed that the duty burden was retained by the assessee, and the record indicated clearance of goods at cum-duty price, supporting transfer of incidence to buyers. The claim was therefore barred by unjust enrichment and denied on that ground. The limitation objection based on alleged protest was not disturbed, as the appellate finding on limitation was not challenged by the Revenue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51745