Refund of pre-deposit cannot be denied for non-production of original TR6 challan when repayment is otherwise admissible.

Refund of a pre-deposit made under judicial or quasi-judicial direction cannot be denied merely because the original TR6 challan is not filed with the refund claim. Where the refund is otherwise admissible on the record, insistence on a formal application or production of the original challan is not a valid basis to defeat repayment. If the challan has been lost or destroyed, the refund may still be processed under departmental procedure, including execution of an indemnity bond. The assessee was therefore entitled to the admitted refund.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of a pre-deposit made in compliance with an order of a superior forum can be denied merely because the original TR6 challan was not filed with the refund application.

Analysis: The refund was found otherwise admissible on the record. The requirement of a formal refund application, and insistence on the original TR6 challan, was held not to be a valid ground to defeat repayment of an amount deposited pursuant to judicial or quasi-judicial directions. Where the challan is lost or destroyed, refund may be processed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the departmental manuals, including the execution of indemnity bonds.

Conclusion: Refund could not be refused solely for non-production of the original TR6 challan, and the assessee was entitled to payment of the admitted refund.

---