https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54297 The tribunal upheld the adjudicator's decision regarding the interpretation of duty element on Central Excise invoices, emphasizing that duty should only be indicated when charged to the customer. It found discrepancies in the payment of duty by the customer and deemed the manufacturer's claim suspect based on evidence. The tribunal highlighted the reliability of audited balance sheets and Chartered Accountant certificates in establishing non-recovery of duty. It concluded that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyer, warranting a refund under the principle of unjust enrichment, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal in favor of the manufacturer. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:33:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54297 The tribunal upheld the adjudicator's decision regarding the interpretation of duty element on Central Excise invoices, emphasizing that duty should only be indicated when charged to the customer. It found discrepancies in the payment of duty by the customer and deemed the manufacturer's claim suspect based on evidence. The tribunal highlighted the reliability of audited balance sheets and Chartered Accountant certificates in establishing non-recovery of duty. It concluded that the duty incidence had not been passed on to the buyer, warranting a refund under the principle of unjust enrichment, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal in favor of the manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54297