Excise refund claims require proof of non-passing of duty, and mere constant pricing will not displace the statutory presumption.

Refund claims under the excise refund provisions are not barred where they are filed within six months from the relevant date, even if supporting documents are submitted separately or the application is not initially in the expected form. However, refund is available only if the claimant rebuts the statutory presumption that the duty burden was passed on and proves non-passing by evidence. Mere assertion that prices remained unchanged, or that duty was not separately indicated, is insufficient. On the facts, no reliable evidence displaced the presumption, so the refund was not admissible to the assessee and had to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the refund provisions. (ii) Whether the assessee had proved that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers so as to be entitled to refund, or whether the amount was liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under the refund provisions.

Analysis: The claim for the disputed period was filed within six months from the relevant date. A refund claim need not fail merely because the formal supporting documents were filed separately or the application was not in the precise form initially expected, if the claim itself was lodged in time. The governing refund provision was therefore treated as satisfied on the question of limitation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee had proved that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to customers so as to be entitled to refund, or whether the amount was liable to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Analysis: The refund provisions require the claimant to produce documentary or other evidence showing that the duty burden has not been passed on. The statutory scheme also incorporates a rebuttable presumption that duty is passed on unless proved otherwise. Mere assertion that prices remained constant, or that the duty element was not separately shown, was held insufficient. On the facts, no reliable evidence was furnished to displace the presumption of passing on of duty, and the special nature of the removals did not by itself establish that the duty burden was retained by the assessee.

Conclusion: The assessee failed to prove non-passing of duty incidence, and the refund was not admissible to the assessee but was creditable to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, and the order denying cash refund while directing credit to the Consumer Welfare Fund was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund under the excise refund provisions is not admissible unless the claimant rebuts the statutory presumption of passing on duty and proves by evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to buyers; absence of separate duty indication in pricing is not enough by itself.

---