https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791960 Refund claims for duty paid under protest were not barred by unjust enrichment where the assessee showed that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. Booking the duty as expenditure in the profit and loss account was not, by itself, enough to prove recovery from buyers. The deciding factor was the factual evidence that the new cement unit was operating at a loss, sales realizations were below cost of production, and the Chartered Accountant certificate and supporting financial records showed no passing on of incidence. In the absence of contrary proof from the department, the refund was properly sanctioned with interest. en-us Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 May 2026 15:53:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791960 Refund claims for duty paid under protest were not barred by unjust enrichment where the assessee showed that the duty burden was not passed on to customers. Booking the duty as expenditure in the profit and loss account was not, by itself, enough to prove recovery from buyers. The deciding factor was the factual evidence that the new cement unit was operating at a loss, sales realizations were below cost of production, and the Chartered Accountant certificate and supporting financial records showed no passing on of incidence. In the absence of contrary proof from the department, the refund was properly sanctioned with interest. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791960