Refund on non-cleared goods requires corroborative evidence; matter remanded for fresh scrutiny of eligibility.

Refund of duty on invoices for goods allegedly not cleared from the factory required proof that the goods were never removed after cancellation of the consignee's order. Where the prescribed CBEC Manual procedure was not followed, the assessee had to support the claim with corroborative evidence of non-clearance and explain the failure to intimate the department. As the earlier authority had allowed refund without examining these evidentiary issues, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh scrutiny of the record and reconsideration of eligibility.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on invoices for goods not cleared from the factory was admissible despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and absence of sufficient corroborative evidence.

Analysis: The claim depended on establishing that duty had been paid on goods which were never removed from the factory because the consignee's order was cancelled. The procedure under the CBEC Manual was meant to streamline verification, but where that procedure was not followed, the assessee had to substantiate the claim with corroborative evidence showing non-clearance of the goods and the circumstances for non-intimation. The earlier authority had not recorded findings on these evidentiary aspects and had allowed the refund mechanically without scrutinizing the material on record.

Conclusion: The refund claim required fresh examination on evidence, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for detailed scrutiny and a fresh decision on eligibility.

---