Refund of duty cannot be denied for a wrongly generated invoice when no goods were cleared and excess duty was paid.

Refund of duty could not be denied where the first invoice had been wrongly generated, no goods were actually cleared under it, and the duty paid was in excess. The absence of cancellation of the invoice or prior intimation to the jurisdictional officer was treated as a procedural lapse that did not defeat refund on these facts. The record also showed no evidence that the invoice was used for any other consignment, and any breach of the prescribed procedure could be dealt with separately through penal action. Refund was therefore allowable in respect of the first invoice.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty could be denied on the ground that one invoice was wrongly generated, no goods were cleared under that invoice, and the assessee had not cancelled the invoice or intimated the jurisdictional officer under the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The duty paid against the first invoice was in excess and was not supported by any actual removal of goods. There was no evidence that the invoice had been used for any other consignment. The procedural lapse in not cancelling the invoice or informing the jurisdictional officer did not justify denial of refund on these facts. Any violation of the prescribed procedure could be dealt with separately by the Department by taking penal action, and discrepancies relating to the second invoice could likewise be addressed independently.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied in respect of the first invoice, and the assessee was entitled to succeed on that issue.

---