https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165547 A claim for refund of excise duty was held to be maintainable only within the statutory scheme: the buyer could not recover from the Union of India or the Collector where the payment was made to the supplier, since refund would lie against the person who received the amount. The claim was also treated as barred under the Central Excise Rules because it was not made by the payer within the prescribed three-month period, and the required rule-based compliance was not established. An appellate amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to shift relief against the supplier was rejected because it would introduce a new and inconsistent cause of action. en-us Fri, 30 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:24:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165547 A claim for refund of excise duty was held to be maintainable only within the statutory scheme: the buyer could not recover from the Union of India or the Collector where the payment was made to the supplier, since refund would lie against the person who received the amount. The claim was also treated as barred under the Central Excise Rules because it was not made by the payer within the prescribed three-month period, and the required rule-based compliance was not established. An appellate amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to shift relief against the supplier was rejected because it would introduce a new and inconsistent cause of action. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 Nov 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165547