https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793567 Refund claims arising from post-clearance finalisation of estimated cost were discussed on five points: unjust enrichment was held inapplicable where duty incidence was not shown to have been passed on, so that ground could not sustain rejection; however, because Rule 7 provisional assessment was not adopted, the claims remained governed by Section 11B and were subject to the one-year limitation from the relevant date, making time-barred claims unsustainable. Valuation had to follow CAS-4 under the excise valuation framework, not merely Chapter 13 of the Railway Code. Refund could not be denied only because invoices lacked batch numbers if correlation was otherwise proved from cost sheets and records. en-us Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:24:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793567 Refund claims arising from post-clearance finalisation of estimated cost were discussed on five points: unjust enrichment was held inapplicable where duty incidence was not shown to have been passed on, so that ground could not sustain rejection; however, because Rule 7 provisional assessment was not adopted, the claims remained governed by Section 11B and were subject to the one-year limitation from the relevant date, making time-barred claims unsustainable. Valuation had to follow CAS-4 under the excise valuation framework, not merely Chapter 13 of the Railway Code. Refund could not be denied only because invoices lacked batch numbers if correlation was otherwise proved from cost sheets and records. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793567