Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - The sole contention ...

Central Excise

October 11, 2015

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - The sole contention of the appellant was that they had deposited the duty under protest and that they had not passed on the sale duty to its customers - The fact, that the sale price remained constant does not lead to a conclusion that the duty has not been recovered from the customers - refund denied - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - The sole contention ...

Central Excise

October 11, 2015

You may also like:

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid twice - e appellants are entitled for refund claim for duty paid on Ethanol - unjust enrichment is not applicable - AT

Refund of duty paid under protest – unjust enrichment is not applicable where amount deposited under protest - AT

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - unjust enrichment - Time bar - benefit of ‘payment of duty under protest’ made by the manufacturer cannot be extended to the buyer - AT

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Simply stating that the goods were sold at a loss does not establish that the duty incidence was not passed - No refund - AT

Refund claims – unjust enrichment – service tax paid under protest – refund allowed - AT

Refund claim - Unjust enrichment - price inclusive of duty of excise - maintaining uniformity of price - duty paid under protest - refund allowed - HC

Refund of amount paid under protest - undervaluation - the case of the assessee that it has not passed on the duty element stands established - there is no scope to...

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Security deposit - amount not to be credited to consumer welfare fund - appellants are eligible for refund of cash security...

Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - amount deposited during investigation - and amount of pre-deposit - Refund allowed - AT

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Merely because it was shown as expenditure, the department cannot contend that pre-deposit made by appellant is hit by unjust...

Quick Updates: