Refund claim maintainability turns on who bore the excise duty, not on later buyer authorisation.

Refund provisions were treated as a self-contained code allowing a claim only by the person who actually bore the excise duty and did not pass it on. A manufacturer who had passed on the duty could not maintain a refund claim on behalf of buyers, even if the buyers later authorised it in writing. The buyers themselves were the proper claimants because they were said to have borne the burden, and the absence of any claim by them defeated maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether a manufacturer who has passed on the incidence of excise duty can maintain a refund claim on behalf of its buyers.

Analysis: The refund provisions were treated as self-contained and were read to permit a claim only by the person who had borne the duty and had not passed it on. The authority found that, even if the buyers had later authorised the manufacturer in writing, the statutory scheme did not permit the manufacturer to claim refund on their behalf. The buyers, who were said to have borne the burden, were the proper claimants, and the absence of a claim by them was against refund.

Conclusion: The manufacturer could not validly claim the refund on behalf of the buyers, and the refund claim was not maintainable.

---