https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469215 Refund of excess excise duty paid under an incorrect valuation method was admissible where documentary evidence showed the incidence was not passed on to customers and the amount was reflected as receivable in the books, so unjust enrichment did not apply for the eligible period. The refund claim for the portion filed beyond the statutory one-year limitation period was not maintainable, and the dispute over valuation did not displace that time bar. Overall, refund was sustained only for the non-time-barred period and denied for the delayed portion. en-us Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Jun 2026 20:06:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469215 Refund of excess excise duty paid under an incorrect valuation method was admissible where documentary evidence showed the incidence was not passed on to customers and the amount was reflected as receivable in the books, so unjust enrichment did not apply for the eligible period. The refund claim for the portion filed beyond the statutory one-year limitation period was not maintainable, and the dispute over valuation did not displace that time bar. Overall, refund was sustained only for the non-time-barred period and denied for the delayed portion. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469215