Pre-deposit refund cannot be refused for absence of original TR-6 challan when a certified copy is permitted.

Refund of a pre-deposit made pursuant to an appellate direction could not be denied merely because the original TR-6 challan was not produced. The governing circular permitted an attested xerox copy of the challan for refund purposes, and that procedural objection could not override the substantive right to refund. A precedent dealing with duty paid under protest was inapplicable because the amount here was a pre-deposit made as a condition for hearing the appeal. The refund claim was therefore to be sanctioned.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of the amount deposited as a pre-deposit could be denied for non-production of the original TR-6 challan.

Analysis: The refund was rejected only on the ground that the original TR-6 challan had not been produced. The amount in question was not a duty paid under protest but a pre-deposit made pursuant to an appellate direction for hearing of the appeal. The circular issued by the Board clarified that an attested xerox copy of the TR-6 challan is sufficient for refund, and the refusal could not be sustained on the basis of a time-bar theory that was not the actual basis of rejection. The relied upon precedent dealing with duty paid under protest was found inapplicable to a pre-deposit made as a condition for hearing.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be denied for absence of the original TR-6 challan, and the refund was directed to be sanctioned.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of pre-deposit cannot be rejected merely for non-production of the original TR-6 challan when the governing circular permits an attested copy and the amount was deposited as a condition for pursuing the appeal.

---