Refund for double payment of duty cannot be denied on technical lapse when substantive entitlement is established.

Refund cannot be denied on a mere procedural lapse where double payment of duty on the same consignment is established and undisputed. The goods were first cleared in bond to the consignee's warehouse and duty was again paid on clearance, showing that duty had been discharged twice on the same transaction. In that setting, the omission relating to Annexure A under the prescribed procedure did not defeat an otherwise valid refund claim, because the consignee's clearance payment was in order and the substantive entitlement to refund stood proved. The rejection of the claim on technical grounds was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected on technical or procedural grounds when double payment of duty on the same consignment was established and not disputed.

Analysis: The goods were sent in bond to the consignee's warehouse, where they were received as non-duty-paid goods and duty was again discharged on clearance. Since duty on the same consignment had been paid twice, the entitlement to refund was established. The procedural lapse relating to Annexure A under the prescribed procedure could not defeat a refund claim founded on admitted double payment, particularly when the consignee's duty discharge on clearance was otherwise in order.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim on technical grounds was not justified, and the appellant was entitled to the refund.

---