https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53397 The case involved the withdrawal of duty exemption for 'furfuraldehyde' leading to a demand for duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty. A rectification application restricted the duty demand to the normal limitation period, allowing a refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner found the refund claim hit by unjust enrichment, crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating unjust enrichment did not apply. The Tribunal affirmed the cash refund for the respondents, emphasizing duty not being passed on to customers. The dispute concluded with the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Wed, 07 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:12:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53397 The case involved the withdrawal of duty exemption for 'furfuraldehyde' leading to a demand for duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty. A rectification application restricted the duty demand to the normal limitation period, allowing a refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner found the refund claim hit by unjust enrichment, crediting the amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating unjust enrichment did not apply. The Tribunal affirmed the cash refund for the respondents, emphasizing duty not being passed on to customers. The dispute concluded with the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53397