Burden of proof in refund claims requires evidence of double payment; refund of handloom cess was rejected.

Refund of handloom cess was held inadmissible because the claimants did not prove that the same cess had been paid twice on the same goods. The Tribunal applied the principle that, in a refund proceeding, the burden lies on the claimant to establish double payment with evidence; a bare assertion is insufficient. As the appellants failed to substantiate that unprocessed cotton fabrics had already borne cess for the identical quantity claimed, the rejection of refund was upheld and the issue was decided against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of handloom cess on the ground that cess had already been paid on the same goods, and whether they had discharged the burden of proving double payment.

Analysis: The refund claim was founded on the assertion that unprocessed cotton fabrics had already borne handloom cess and that the processors should therefore receive refund. The Tribunal held that a bare assertion was insufficient. In a refund proceeding, the claimant bears the burden of establishing that cess was paid twice on the same quantity of goods for which refund is sought. On the facts, the appellants failed to substantiate double payment of cess.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not admissible and its rejection by the lower authority was . The issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellants did not prove double payment of cess on the goods in question, and the rejection of refund was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of duty or cess cannot be granted unless the claimant affirmatively proves, with evidence, that the same levy was paid twice on the same goods.

---