https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53696 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order granting a refund of excise duty on concrete poles captively consumed by KSEB, ruling that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment as the duty burden was not passed on to consumers. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act did not apply due to the absence of a sale of the poles. However, the matter was remanded for the respondents to prove that duty incidence was not passed on to consumers for refund entitlement, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation of unjust enrichment in captive consumption cases. en-us Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:37:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53696 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order granting a refund of excise duty on concrete poles captively consumed by KSEB, ruling that the refund claim was not hit by unjust enrichment as the duty burden was not passed on to consumers. The Revenue's appeal was rejected as the presumption under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act did not apply due to the absence of a sale of the poles. However, the matter was remanded for the respondents to prove that duty incidence was not passed on to consumers for refund entitlement, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation of unjust enrichment in captive consumption cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53696