Refund of central excise duty requires proof that the duty burden was not passed on to consumers under Section 11B.

Refund of central excise duty under the amended Section 11B required the claimant to prove that the duty burden had not been passed on to consumers. Where invoices did not separately disclose the duty element, and the assessee relied only on the fact that the cum-duty sale price remained unchanged after the duty rate changed, that circumstance created only a rebuttable presumption. It was not enough, by itself, to establish that the incidence of duty was borne by the assessee. On the material on record, refund was not payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of central excise duty was admissible where the invoices did not separately show the duty element and the assessee relied only on the maintenance of the same cum-duty price to contend that the duty incidence had not been passed on to consumers.

Analysis: Under the amended Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the claimant for refund must establish that the duty burden has not been passed on to the consumer. The duty element was not shown separately in the invoices, and the mere fact that the sale price remained the same before and after the change in duty rate could only raise a presumption. Such a presumption was insufficient to prove that the incidence of duty had been borne by the assessee.

Conclusion: Refund was not payable on the material placed on record, and the appeal was liable to be rejected.

---