Excise duty refund claims must follow the statutory mechanism and prove no passing on of the tax burden.

Writ jurisdiction is not ordinarily available for refund of excise duty where the claim falls within the statutory refund mechanism, and the claimant must establish that the duty burden was not passed on to a third party. The court reiterated that, save for unconstitutional levies, such refund disputes must be pursued under the statutory scheme; because disputed questions of fact were also involved, Article 226 relief was declined and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition seeking refund of excise duty was maintainable when the claim fell within the statutory refund mechanism and the petitioner had to establish that the duty burden had not been passed on.

Analysis: The petition sought refund of alleged excess excise duty, but the challenge was held not maintainable in writ jurisdiction. The governing principle applied was that refund claims, except where the levy is unconstitutional, must be pursued under the statutory refund provisions and are subject to proof that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to a third party. In view of that settled position, and since disputed questions of fact were also involved, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was not to be exercised.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed.

---