Excise refund claim by purchaser rejected where duty was not paid directly by the buyer, with remedy lying against the manufacturer.

A mere purchaser of excisable goods, who was neither the manufacturer nor the person who directly paid the excise duty to the Government, was held not entitled to claim refund from the Government. The operative reasoning was that any refund claim based on exemption or notification benefits must be pursued by the person who discharged the duty, and a purchaser's remedy, if any, lay against the supplier-manufacturer. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable at the purchaser's instance and was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a mere purchaser of excisable goods, who was not the manufacturer and had not paid the excise duty directly to the Government, was entitled to claim refund of the duty.

Analysis: The refund was claimed by the assessee on the footing that the goods purchased were eligible for the benefit of the relevant notifications. The decisive point was whether such benefit could be claimed by a purchaser who did not manufacture the goods and who had not discharged the duty directly. The reasoning adopted was that a person in that position could not seek refund from the Government directly, and any claim, if available, lay against the supplier-manufacturer.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable at the assessee's instance and was rejected.

---