Duty refund on post-clearance destruction denied where the claimant lacked locus standi and no refund provision applied.

Refund of duty was not available for goods cleared on payment of duty and destroyed only after clearance, because the destruction occurred at a post-clearance stage and no refund provision was applicable to that situation. The authorities also held that the revision applicants lacked locus standi to pursue the claim, since the refund application had been made by a different concern treated as a separate legal entity, and common ownership did not alter that position. On those grounds, the refund claim was held not maintainable and rejection of refund was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty could be granted on goods cleared on payment of duty and destroyed after clearance, and whether the revision applicants had locus standi to maintain the refund claim.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared from the petitioner's premises on payment of duty and were destroyed later in the premises of a different concern. The two concerns were treated as distinct legal entities, and ownership of both by the same persons did not alter that position. Since the refund claim had originally been made by the other concern, the revision applicants were not regarded as the aggrieved party in respect of the order rejecting refund. The authorities also held that no refund provision applied to goods destroyed at a post-clearance stage after duty-paid clearance.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not maintainable and the rejection of refund was upheld.

---