Tsunami-relief refund claims cannot fail on technical proof defects when substantive use of materials is duly certified.

A refund claim under a Tsunami-relief notification could not be rejected merely for technical non-production of documentary proof where certificates from the Chartered Engineer and the District Collector sufficiently showed that centrally procured cement and steel were used to construct houses for Tsunami victims. Because the substantive purpose of the rehabilitation policy was satisfied, the rejection was held unsustainable and the refund claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under the Tsunami-relief notification could be rejected for want of documentary proof of use of centrally procured cement and steel in the construction of houses.

Analysis: The refund was claimed under the Government's special policy for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims. The appellant produced certificates from the Chartered Engineer and the District Collector, which were found sufficient to establish that the cement and steel had been used in constructing the houses. The rejection was based only on a technical objection regarding production of documents, although the substantive purpose of the notification stood satisfied.

Conclusion: The rejection was unsustainable and the refund claim was allowed.

---