CESTAT held that the appellant's refund claims following ...

# Refund Claims Rejected Under Unjust Enrichment Doctrine as Appellant Failed to Prove Duty Burden Not Passed to Consumers

March 29, 2025

Case Laws Central Excise AT

CESTAT held that the appellant's refund claims following provisional assessment finalization were barred by unjust enrichment doctrine. While the appellant demonstrated they bore the duty burden and did not pass it to dealers through credit notes and CA certificates, they failed to establish that dealers did not subsequently transfer this burden to ultimate motorcycle consumers. Following Addison & Co. Ltd., there exists a presumption that duty incidence passes to buyers, and refunds are permissible only to those who ultimately bear the burden. The Original Authority's verification was inadequate as it only examined the first stage of transactions. Appeals were allowed by remand for proper verification of the complete duty burden trail.

View Source

← Previous Next →

CESTAT held that the appellant's refund claims following ...

# Refund Claims Rejected Under Unjust Enrichment Doctrine as Appellant Failed to Prove Duty Burden Not Passed to Consumers

March 29, 2025

Case Laws Central Excise AT

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 Customs duty - unjust enrichment - Chennai Port Trust (the buyer) had indeed borne the duty burden, as evidenced by financial records and a letter from the...

Refund claim of excess duty denied due to unjust enrichment - goods sold based on LME price index. Revenue contended appellant booked excess duty as revenue expenditure...

Show cause notice demanding interest was confirmed by the original Adjudicating Authority and settled under SVLDRS Scheme, thus refund of the confirmed amount does not...

The appellant sought refund of countervailing duty (CVD) paid while importing goods declared as 'Natural gum in raw form' through Bills of Entry filed during 2011-2014....

Refund of duty - unjust enrichment - Crying fire is of no avail if one cannot show even a streak of smoke - department failed to prove its case of unjust enrichment -...

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Initially claim filed without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry - During the appeal process, the appellant sought to amend...

Refund claim rejected – Unjust enrichment - the appellant’s have not recovered the amounts of duties from their customers so as to attract the unjust enrichment principles - AT

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

The CESTAT examined the applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for refund claims. It held that Rule 6(3) of the CCR...

The appellant filed bills of entry claiming exemption under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus, which was denied during re-assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) rectified...

Refund claim - unjust enrichment - except for putting forth arguments theoretically, the appellants have not put forth any incontrovertible evidence to prove that the...

The appellant agreed that duty paid by mistake to the government was passed on to the principal contractor under protest. Their argument was that the principal...

The case involved a refund claim for duty paid under protest, rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment. The appellant paid duty under protest and filed a refund claim...

Refund claim - Duty paid under protest - Doctrine of unjust enrichment - Dispute relating to classification was resolved in favor appellant assessee - The tribunal found...

Quick Updates: