https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52494 Excess duty paid under the compounded levy scheme was treated as refundable where the duty was fixed under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not linked to actual clearances, and the sale price of the finished goods remained unchanged. On those facts, the incidence of duty could not be said to have been passed on to buyers, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply as a bar to refund. The ruling confirms that a refund claim for excess payment pending redetermination of annual production capacity under Section 3A(5) must be tested on whether duty incidence was actually shifted. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Oct 2010 11:29:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52494 Excess duty paid under the compounded levy scheme was treated as refundable where the duty was fixed under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and not linked to actual clearances, and the sale price of the finished goods remained unchanged. On those facts, the incidence of duty could not be said to have been passed on to buyers, so the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply as a bar to refund. The ruling confirms that a refund claim for excess payment pending redetermination of annual production capacity under Section 3A(5) must be tested on whether duty incidence was actually shifted. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52494