https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52975 A refund claim arising after appellate recognition of concessional duty was held not barred by limitation where the initial application was filed within time and the assessee's mistaken filing before the wrong authority was later corrected by refiling before the proper authority. The refund was also held not hit by unjust enrichment because the sale price of urea was Government-controlled and the duty on naphtha was not loaded into the retention price, showing that the incidence had not been passed on. The rejection of refund was therefore set aside and the claim succeeded on both grounds. en-us Mon, 24 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2024 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52975 A refund claim arising after appellate recognition of concessional duty was held not barred by limitation where the initial application was filed within time and the assessee's mistaken filing before the wrong authority was later corrected by refiling before the proper authority. The refund was also held not hit by unjust enrichment because the sale price of urea was Government-controlled and the duty on naphtha was not loaded into the retention price, showing that the incidence had not been passed on. The rejection of refund was therefore set aside and the claim succeeded on both grounds. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52975