Double duty refund claims remain maintainable, but timeliness under Section 11B must still be verified.

Refund was recognized in principle where goods were cleared on payment of duty, returned for further processing, and cleared again, resulting in double duty payment. The absence of the transporter's duplicate invoice copy was treated as a Rule 173L defect, but it did not by itself defeat substantive refund entitlement when the factual position showed duty had been paid twice. The limitation requirement under Section 11B remained a statutory condition, so the refund claims had to be verified for timeliness by the original authority. The limitation issue was therefore remanded for de novo examination and decision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the assessee was entitled to refund where the goods were cleared after payment of duty, returned for further processing, and again cleared on payment of duty, and (ii) whether the refund claims required verification on the question of limitation under Section 11B.

Issue (i): whether the assessee was entitled to refund where the goods were cleared after payment of duty, returned for further processing, and again cleared on payment of duty.

Analysis: The goods had admittedly suffered duty twice. The receipt of the returned goods in the factory was intimated through D-3 intimations, and the absence of the transporter's duplicate invoice copy was treated as a defect under Rule 173L. The Tribunal held that the substantive entitlement to refund could not be denied merely on that ground where the factual position showed double payment of duty, subject to compliance with the limitation requirement.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to refund in principle, subject to the claims being within limitation.

Issue (ii): whether the refund claims required verification on the question of limitation under Section 11B.

Analysis: The limitation aspect had to be examined as a statutory requirement. Since the claimants asserted that the refund applications were filed in time, the matter required factual verification by the original authority. The Tribunal therefore declined to finally decide limitation and directed fresh examination.

Conclusion: The limitation question was remanded for de novo verification and decision.

Final Conclusion: The order recognizes the refund claim on merits but leaves the limitation issue open for fresh adjudication by the original authority, resulting in a remand.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim arising from double payment of duty cannot be finally denied without examining statutory limitation, and a refund question may be remanded for de novo verification where the time-bar issue requires factual determination.

---