Petitioner lacks standing to challenge Commissioner's refund order. Indirect claims time-barred. Statutory requirements not met.

The court dismissed the petition as the petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge the Commissioner (Appeals) order on refund claims of another entity. The petitioner's indirect refund claims were time-barred, not complying with statutory refund application procedures. The court emphasized the petitioner's failure to meet statutory requirements and ruled no liability was imposed on them by previous orders. Consequently, the court discharged the rule with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
1. Locus standi of the petitioner to file appeals against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to claim refund of Excise Duty paid by another entity.
3. Interpretation of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act regarding refund applications.
4. Application of Section 35B of the Act in determining locus standi.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Locus standi of the petitioner
The petitioner filed appeals challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting refund claims of another entity, IPCL. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals stating the petitioner lacked locus standi. The petitioner argued they were "aggrieved" under Section 35B(1) of the Act. However, the court held that as the IPCL, not the petitioner, submitted refund applications and did not challenge the Commissioner's order, the petitioner was not directly affected. The court emphasized that no liability was imposed on the petitioner by the previous orders.

Issue 2: Entitlement to claim refund
The petitioner contended they were entitled to a refund under Section 11B(2)(e) as a buyer of goods subject to duty. However, the court noted the petitioner failed to submit refund applications within the statutory time limit. By filing appeals against the IPCL's rejected claims, the petitioner sought refunds indirectly. The court highlighted that the petitioner's refund claims would be time-barred under Section 11(2) if filed independently.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 11B
The court clarified that the petitioner's failure to follow the procedure under Section 11B for refund applications led to the dismissal of their appeals. The court emphasized that the petitioner's actions were not in line with the statutory requirements for claiming refunds under the Act.

Issue 4: Application of Section 35B
Regarding the reliance on Section 35B and a previous court decision, the court ruled that no liability was imposed on the petitioner by the Commissioner's order. Therefore, the petitioner could not be considered "aggrieved" as claimed. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner had locus standi based on this provision.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish locus standi and did not comply with the statutory requirements for claiming refunds. The court discharged the rule with no costs awarded.

---