https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795113 Refund of reversed Cenvat credit was not barred by unjust enrichment where no invoice was raised to recover the amount from customers and a Chartered Accountant certificate, based on the books of account, confirmed that the amount was not transferred to another person. Treating the amount as expenditure or later as a receivable/current asset did not by itself prove that service tax incidence had been passed on. The statutory presumption of passing on was rebutted by evidence, and the principle concerning duty embedded in finished-goods prices was distinguishable because the assessee bore the reversed credit. The refund was payable to the assessee, not the Consumer Welfare Fund. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:37:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795113 Refund of reversed Cenvat credit was not barred by unjust enrichment where no invoice was raised to recover the amount from customers and a Chartered Accountant certificate, based on the books of account, confirmed that the amount was not transferred to another person. Treating the amount as expenditure or later as a receivable/current asset did not by itself prove that service tax incidence had been passed on. The statutory presumption of passing on was rebutted by evidence, and the principle concerning duty embedded in finished-goods prices was distinguishable because the assessee bore the reversed credit. The refund was payable to the assessee, not the Consumer Welfare Fund. Case-Laws Service Tax Thu, 16 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795113