Refund of excess deposit cannot be denied for missing challans, but unjust enrichment must still be verified before sanction

Refund of an excess deposit cannot be refused merely because original TR 6 challans are unavailable, where the deposit is otherwise established from the adjudication record, departmental attested copies, and the assessee's accounts. The absence of the original challans or a claimed mismatch in reconciliation was not by itself a valid ground to deny refund. However, the sanctioning authority must still verify unjust enrichment before granting refund, including whether the duty incidence was passed on. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on entitlement and unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground that the amount deposited was not reconcilable with the claim and the original TR 6 challans were not produced; (ii) whether the claim required verification of unjust enrichment before sanction.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground that the amount deposited was not reconcilable with the claim and the original TR 6 challans were not produced

Analysis: The amount claimed as refund was found to be in excess of the adjudged demand and, therefore, refundable in principle to the person who had deposited it. The deposit was recorded in the adjudication order, attested copies of the challans had been issued by the department, and the accounts of the appellants reflected the amounts as receivables. In these circumstances, the absence of the original challans by itself was not a valid ground to deny refund.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected merely for want of the original challans or on the ground of non-reconcilability.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim required verification of unjust enrichment before sanction

Analysis: The balance sheets indicated that the amounts were shown under loan and advances, suggesting that the incidence of duty had not been passed on. Even so, the sanctioning authority was required to verify this aspect before passing a fresh order on refund.

Conclusion: The claim was directed to be re-examined after verification of unjust enrichment.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claims was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with directions to verify entitlement and unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund of excess deposit cannot be denied solely because the original challan is unavailable when the deposit is otherwise established from departmental records and the entitlement can be verified from the account records, though the authority must still examine unjust enrichment.

---