https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54474 A refund claim arising from differential excise duty was examined through the unjust enrichment test, with the key question being whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers. The mere fact that the sale price remained unchanged before and after the duty reduction was held insufficient to disprove passing on, because price stability may result from several commercial factors and is not conclusive evidence. The later coordinate view was preferred over the earlier one. On that basis, the refund was treated as barred by unjust enrichment and the rejection of refund was sustained. en-us Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:50:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54474 A refund claim arising from differential excise duty was examined through the unjust enrichment test, with the key question being whether the incidence of duty had been passed on to buyers. The mere fact that the sale price remained unchanged before and after the duty reduction was held insufficient to disprove passing on, because price stability may result from several commercial factors and is not conclusive evidence. The later coordinate view was preferred over the earlier one. On that basis, the refund was treated as barred by unjust enrichment and the rejection of refund was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54474