https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54194 Refund of differential central excise duty paid under protest on reclassification was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment. The Tribunal treated Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as creating a rebuttable presumption of passing on the duty burden, and found that the assessee rebutted it by showing that the sale price remained unchanged and the excess duty was not recovered from customers. Separate indication of duty in invoices was held not conclusive by itself. The Tribunal also accepted that duty later debited in PLA on the dharmada amount was not hit by the same presumption on the facts, and the refund was admissible. en-us Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:10:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54194 Refund of differential central excise duty paid under protest on reclassification was held not to be barred by unjust enrichment. The Tribunal treated Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as creating a rebuttable presumption of passing on the duty burden, and found that the assessee rebutted it by showing that the sale price remained unchanged and the excess duty was not recovered from customers. Separate indication of duty in invoices was held not conclusive by itself. The Tribunal also accepted that duty later debited in PLA on the dharmada amount was not hit by the same presumption on the facts, and the refund was admissible. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54194