Refund claims and burden of proving no passing on of duty required fresh consideration under governing refund principles.

Refund proceedings for the period after 9 February 1982 were required to be reconsidered under the governing refund principles, because the controlling law demanded proof that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to others. The earlier period was treated as time-barred. The refund claim for the relevant remaining period was remitted to the Assistant Collector for fresh examination on the passing-on issue, and the assessee had to discharge the burden of proving that the duty burden was not transferred to buyers or other persons.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim for the period 9 February 1982 to 9 August 1982 could be examined in the light of the governing principles on refund pending the decision in Mafatlal Industries and whether the assessee had to establish that the duty burden had not been passed on.

Analysis: The period prior to 9 February 1982 was accepted as barred by limitation. For the remaining period, the refund proceedings were pending when the governing decision on refund law was delivered, and that decision required the claimant to show that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to others. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the Assistant Collector under the applicable refund principles.

Conclusion: The refund claim for the relevant period was remitted to the Assistant Collector for fresh consideration on the question of passing on of duty, and the assessee must satisfy the burden of proof on that issue.

---