https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165828 A mere purchaser of excisable goods, who was neither the manufacturer nor the person who directly paid the excise duty to the Government, was held not entitled to claim refund from the Government. The operative reasoning was that any refund claim based on exemption or notification benefits must be pursued by the person who discharged the duty, and a purchaser's remedy, if any, lay against the supplier-manufacturer. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable at the purchaser's instance and was rejected. en-us Sat, 19 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2014 11:12:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165828 A mere purchaser of excisable goods, who was neither the manufacturer nor the person who directly paid the excise duty to the Government, was held not entitled to claim refund from the Government. The operative reasoning was that any refund claim based on exemption or notification benefits must be pursued by the person who discharged the duty, and a purchaser's remedy, if any, lay against the supplier-manufacturer. The refund claim was therefore not maintainable at the purchaser's instance and was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 19 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165828