https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112503 Refund provisions were treated as a self-contained code allowing a claim only by the person who actually bore the excise duty and did not pass it on. A manufacturer who had passed on the duty could not maintain a refund claim on behalf of buyers, even if the buyers later authorised it in writing. The buyers themselves were the proper claimants because they were said to have borne the burden, and the absence of any claim by them defeated maintainability. en-us Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:58:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112503 Refund provisions were treated as a self-contained code allowing a claim only by the person who actually bore the excise duty and did not pass it on. A manufacturer who had passed on the duty could not maintain a refund claim on behalf of buyers, even if the buyers later authorised it in writing. The buyers themselves were the proper claimants because they were said to have borne the burden, and the absence of any claim by them defeated maintainability. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112503