https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54479 The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar a refund claim where the assessee shows that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. Here, the refund related to processed fabrics after an increase in the deemed credit rate, but the assessee continued charging duty at the earlier higher rate because the amendment was not immediately known. Customers objected to the excess charge and issued debit notes for the differential amount, and the Revenue did not dispute those notes. On those facts, the duty sought to be refunded was not recovered from buyers, so unjust enrichment was not attracted and the refund was maintainable. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:59:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54479 The doctrine of unjust enrichment does not bar a refund claim where the assessee shows that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers. Here, the refund related to processed fabrics after an increase in the deemed credit rate, but the assessee continued charging duty at the earlier higher rate because the amendment was not immediately known. Customers objected to the excess charge and issued debit notes for the differential amount, and the Revenue did not dispute those notes. On those facts, the duty sought to be refunded was not recovered from buyers, so unjust enrichment was not attracted and the refund was maintainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54479