ORDER 1. The respondents have been served 10 these appeals but have not entered appearance. 2. These appeals arise out of a reference to the High Court under the provisions of the Gift Tax Act, 1958. (The judgment and order of the High Court is reported in D.C. Shah v. CGTl.) 3. The reference pertained to the reconstitution of a partnership firm carrying on business in the name of Shah Chhaganlal Ugarchand Akkolkar at Nippani on 1-1-1964 and 19-11-1968, when fresh deeds of partnership came to be executed. The reference was of six questions. The first question is illustrative of the issue involved, and it reads thus: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a taxable gift by the assessee when his share of profit in the firm was reduced from 19 paise to 14 paise and thus of his son, Kiran D. Shah was increased from paise to 14 paise ?" 4. It is not contended on behalf of the Revenue that there was any reduction in the capital contribution of the assessee and a consequential increase in the capital contribution of his son pursuant to the alteration in their shares of profit. What is submitted is that the mere fact that the share of the assessee in the profits of the firm was reduced from 19 to 14 paise and that of his son increased from 9 to 14 paise established that there had been a taxable gift of the 5 paise share of profits. The High Court was right in holding, having regard to the recitals of the deed of partnership, that it was not possible to make out any transfer of property as such by any particular individual in favour of another individual so as to result in a gift. To find out whether there was a gift, the terms of the document were material as also any other evidence that might be brought on record, and the burden of so doing was upon the Revenue. There being no material from which it could be inferred that there was a gift, the High Court concluded that the answer to the question must be in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There being no material from which it could be inferred that there was a gift, the High Court concluded that the answer to the question must be in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The High Court noted that the son had brought into the firm a contribution of capital in the sum of Rs 2.33 lakhs. He had been in the business for nearly 4 years and the High Court found it reasonable to assume that the increase in his share of profits was on account of his experience and capacity to shoulder more responsibilities. Merely because the share of the father had come to be reduced by 5 paise and there was a corresponding increase so far as the son was concerned, did not lead to the inference that the 5 paise share of the father had been transferred to the son. 5. This was the position also in regard to the subsequent alterations in the profit-sharing arrangements of the firm, to which the other questions related. 6. That the share of one partner is decreased and that of another partner correspondingly increased, does not lead to the inference that the former had gifted the difference to the latter. The profit-sharing ratio in a firm can vary for a number of reasons, among them, the ability of the partners to devote time to the business of the firm. The gift of a part of a partners share to another partner has to be established by relevant evidence. The onus of doing so is on the Revenue. It has not been discharged in the present case. 7. No interference with the judgment and the order under appeal is called for. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest". Significantly, the proviso does not state that the period of limitation of six a months will not apply where no protest has been lodged by the purchaser. Duty will always be paid by the manufacturer. Under Rule 233-B, at the time the manufacturer pays duty, he has to lodge a protest. A receipt or endorsement of "duty paid under protest" is issued to the manufacturer. There is no rule or provision by which protest can be lodged by a purchaser. Duty will always be paid by the manufacturer. Under Rule 233-B, at the time the manufacturer pays duty, he has to lodge a protest. A receipt or endorsement of "duty paid under protest" is issued to the manufacturer. There is no rule or provision by which protest can be lodged by a purchaser. The wording of the proviso shows that the legislature has worded the proviso in a manner which covers all claims for refund. The wide language of the proviso shows that it covers not just claims for refund by the manufacturer but also claims for refund by the purchaser. Thus, if duty is paid by a manufacturer under protest, then the limitation of six months will not apply even to a claim for refund by the purchaser. 4. We are, therefore, unable to accept the majority view. The impugned judgment accordingly needs to be and is hereby set aside. 5. However, it must be clarified that before refund can be claimed either by the manufacturer or by the purchaser, the conditions of Section 11- B must be fulfilled viz. it must be shown that the amount of duty of excise in relation to which such refund is claimed was "collected from or paid" by the person claiming refund and that the incidence of such duty has not been passed on by him to any other person. Therefore, even in a claim for refund by the purchaser, he would have to satisfy the Department that these conditions are fulfilled before any refund can be made to him. 6. In this view of the matter, we remit the matter back to the appropriate authority for consideration in the light of the law laid down herein. 7. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.