Refund cannot be denied on a ground outside the show-cause notice; similarly placed invoices must be treated alike.

A refund claim under the excise refund framework cannot be rejected on a ground not set out in the show-cause notice. The adjudication order had relied on non-verification of D3 No. 27 for invoice No. 1150, but that basis was extraneous to the notice and the rejection on that ground was unsustainable. Where D3 intimation had been filed for both invoices and compulsory verification had been dispensed with, invoice No. 1150 stood on the same footing as the admitted claim for invoice No. 1149. The refund for invoice No. 1150 was therefore held allowable, with consequential relief granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund under Rule 173L could be denied on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice, namely non-verification of D3 No. 27 for invoice No. 1150; (ii) whether the refund claim in respect of invoice No. 1150 was sustainable on the same footing as the admitted claim for invoice No. 1149.

Issue (i): whether refund under Rule 173L could be denied on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice, namely non-verification of D3 No. 27 for invoice No. 1150.

Analysis: The rejection of refund for invoice No. 1150 rested on a verification issue that was not part of the notice proposing disallowance. A refund claim cannot be rejected on a new basis introduced for the first time in the adjudication order. Since the ground of non-verification of D3 No. 27 was extraneous to the notice, the adverse finding on that basis could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on this ground was held unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the refund claim in respect of invoice No. 1150 was sustainable on the same footing as the admitted claim for invoice No. 1149.

Analysis: D3 intimation had been filed for both invoices, and the requirement of compulsory verification had been dispensed with. The claim relating to invoice No. 1149 had already been accepted, and the Revenue did not challenge that acceptance. On the same factual and procedural footing, the claim for invoice No. 1150 could not be rejected merely because an endorsement of verification was absent.

Conclusion: The refund claim for invoice No. 1150 was held allowable along with the consequential refund benefits.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's refund claim succeeded in full, with the adverse orders of the lower authorities being set aside and consequential relief granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the excise refund framework cannot be rejected on a ground not contained in the show-cause notice, and once the relevant procedural requirement has been dispensed with or substantially complied with, similarly placed invoices must be treated alike for refund purposes.

---