Rewarehousing certificate refund under Rule 156B cannot be denied once prescribed proof is later produced and statutory conditions are met.

Duty paid after failure to produce rewarehousing certificates within time was refundable under Rule 156B once the prescribed proof was later produced. The authority could not deny refund by recasting the levy as duty under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A, nor by going beyond the limited scope of the remand, which was confined to verifying the factual position regarding rewarehousing documents. The court held that the timing of payment did not defeat refund where the statutory conditions were subsequently satisfied, and set aside the denial of refund with consequential interest relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to refund of duty paid after failure to produce rewarehousing certificates within time under Rule 156B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the authorities could deny refund by treating the duty as one paid under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from a demand triggered by non-production of rewarehousing certificates within the prescribed period. The earlier remand order had confined the adjudicating authority to verification of the factual position regarding rewarehousing documents, but the authority reopened the broader question of entitlement and relied on the subsistence of the original demand to deny refund. That approach was held to be beyond the scope of remand and unsustainable. On merits, Rule 156B was construed to mean that once duty is paid on account of failure to present the triplicate application and the rewarehousing proof is subsequently produced, the consignor becomes entitled to refund. The Court rejected the department's narrow reading that only duty paid within ten days of demand was refundable and held that the timing of payment did not exclude refund once the statutory conditions were later satisfied.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to refund under Rule 156B, and the denial of refund was illegal.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund claim was allowed with consequential interest relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty is paid because rewarehousing certificates were not produced in time, subsequent production of the prescribed proof entitles the consignor to refund under Rule 156B, and the refund cannot be denied by recasting the demand as one under a different provision or by exceeding the limited scope of remand.

---