Refund claim correlation failure under Section 11B sustained where invoice records could not link factory clearances to depot sales.

Refund under Section 11B was denied because the claimant failed to establish proper correlation between factory clearances and depot/consignment agent invoices, and the records did not satisfactorily show that the duty burden had not been passed on. The mismatch in invoice addresses, together with the absence of serial numbers or other identifying particulars on the depot invoices, led the Tribunal to treat the issue as one of factual proof rather than legal error. No substantial question of law arose from that factual finding, and the rejection of the refund claim was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Section 11B could be denied for want of proper correlation between factory invoices and consignment agent invoices, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the findings on such factual correlation.

Analysis: The refund claim depended upon proof that the duty burden had not been passed on and that the goods cleared from the factory could be correlated with the goods sold through the depot. The records showed discrepancy in the addresses shown in the two sets of invoices, and the depot invoices did not furnish sufficient particulars, including serial numbers or other identifying marks, to establish complete correlation with the factory clearances. The Tribunal therefore treated the matter as one of factual deficiency in proof rather than one raising any legal infirmity in the rejection of refund.

Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose. The rejection of the refund claim on the ground of lack of factual correlation was sustained, and the appeals were dismissed in favour of the Revenue.

---