Strict proof for excise duty refund demands primary invoices and evidence that the exported goods are the same goods.

Refund of excise duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act requires strict proof that duty was paid on the goods and that the very same goods were exported. Where the claimant fails to produce the original or duplicate manufacturers' invoices and the primary documents referred to in Section 12A, payment of duty is not established. If the exporter's invoices pre-date the corresponding manufacturers' invoices, that inconsistency further weakens identity of goods. On those facts, the statutory conditions for refund are not satisfied and the claim is not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of alleged export of the goods, despite failure to produce the original or duplicate manufacturers' invoices and other supporting documents.

Analysis: The refund claim rested on proof of duty payment on the goods and proof that the same goods were exported. The assessee did not produce the original or duplicate manufacturers' invoices or the documents referred to in Section 12A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the absence of such primary evidence, payment of duty on the goods was not established. The exporter's invoices were also earlier than the corresponding manufacturers' invoices, which weakened the claim that the exported goods were the same as the goods purchased from the manufacturer. On these facts, the statutory conditions for refund were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and was rightly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 requires strict proof of duty payment and of export of the very same goods, and the claim fails where the claimant does not produce the primary documentary evidence supporting those requirements.

---