Excise refund bar under Section 11B applies when the manufacturer passes duty incidence to the buyer.

A manufacturer cannot obtain refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise law where it has passed on the incidence of duty to its buyer in a job-work arrangement. The statutory bar under Section 11B(2) applies once the claimant-manufacturer has recovered the duty burden from another person, and it is immaterial that the buyer may not have further passed on the duty to its own customers. The reference to the relevant date under Explanation B did not assist the manufacturer, because any claim would lie, if at all, with the proper claimant who bore the duty incidence. The refund claim was therefore rejected and the denial upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the manufacturer, having passed on the incidence of excise duty to its buyer in a job-work arrangement, was entitled to refund under Section 11B.

Analysis: The refund claim was tested against the doctrine embodied in Section 11B(2), which denies refund to a claimant who has passed on the incidence of duty to another person. The record showed that the appellant, being the manufacturer, had recovered the duty burden from M/s. Oswal Industries. The plea that the buyer had not passed on the duty to its own customers did not alter the position, because the statutory focus was on whether the appellant-manufacturer itself had passed on the duty incidence. The reference to the relevant date under Explanation B did not assist the appellant, as the buyer, not the manufacturer, would be the proper claimant if otherwise entitled.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to refund under Section 11B, and the rejection of the claim was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer who has passed on the incidence of excise duty to another person cannot obtain refund under Section 11B; the bar applies notwithstanding that the buyer may not have further passed on the duty.

---