Refund of excise duty cannot be denied for non-production of original invoices when substantive requirements are met.

Refund of excise duty could not be denied where the substantive conditions for refund were satisfied and the assessee had produced the essential supporting records, including PLA and TR-6 challans. The Tribunal treated production of original invoices with endorsement as a procedural requirement, not a substantive condition for admissibility of refund. Non-production of the original invoices, by itself, was therefore not a valid ground to reject the claim, and refund was directed to be granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty could be denied merely because original invoices were not produced when the substantive conditions for refund had been complied with.

Analysis: The appeal turned on whether production of original invoices and endorsement thereon was a substantive condition for grant of refund or only a procedural formality. The appellant had supplied Naphtha against the exemption notifications and had produced the essential supporting documents, including the PLA and TR-6 challans. The Tribunal held that the substantive legal requirements for refund stood complied with, and that non-production of the original invoices was not a substantive bar to refund eligibility.

Conclusion: The requirement of endorsement on original invoices was held to be procedural and not essential for admissibility of refund. The refund was directed to be granted in favour of the assessee.

---