https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52633 Refund of duty deposited pursuant to court orders was denied because the claimant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the earlier remand was limited to producing evidence of non-passing of the duty burden, and issues already settled could not be reopened. On the facts, no documentary material showed that the reduced duty had been absorbed without affecting the cum-duty price or that the incidence had not been passed on to buyers. As the claimant did not satisfy Sections 11B and 12B of the Central Excise Act, the refund claim was inadmissible. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:45:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52633 Refund of duty deposited pursuant to court orders was denied because the claimant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal held that the earlier remand was limited to producing evidence of non-passing of the duty burden, and issues already settled could not be reopened. On the facts, no documentary material showed that the reduced duty had been absorbed without affecting the cum-duty price or that the incidence had not been passed on to buyers. As the claimant did not satisfy Sections 11B and 12B of the Central Excise Act, the refund claim was inadmissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52633