Refund admissible despite missing invoice when duty-paid clearance, return for reprocessing, and later duty payment were established.

Refund was held admissible where goods cleared on payment of duty were later returned as defective for reprocessing, and the subsequent duty-paid clearance was supported by attested declarations and gate pass records. The absence of the original invoice, explained by destruction of factory records in fire, did not defeat the claim because the departmental record already established the first clearance, return for reprocessing, and later duty payment. Mere non-production of the original invoice was therefore insufficient to reject refund when the material evidence otherwise proved entitlement.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund was admissible where goods initially cleared on payment of duty were returned as defective for reprocessing and the original invoice was unavailable because the factory records were destroyed in fire.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly returned for reprocessing after the first duty-paid clearance, and the subsequent clearance on payment of duty was supported by attested declarations and gate pass records. The absence of the original invoice, in the stated fire-related circumstances, did not undermine the veracity of the claim when the departmental record accepted the first clearance, return for reprocessing, and payment of duty.

Conclusion: The refund claim was held admissible and the denial of refund was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee's entitlement to refund was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be rejected merely for non-production of the original invoice when the duty-paid clearance, return of goods for reprocessing, and subsequent duty payment are otherwise satisfactorily established.

---