Excise duty refund for duplicate payment was supported where goods were re-warehoused and already duty-paid at destination.

Rule 156B was read as permitting duty demand at the warehouse of removal when goods were not properly accounted for, and refund to the consignor once re-warehousing was satisfactorily shown. As the goods were in fact re-warehoused at Kanpur and duty had already been paid there, the later payment at the place of origin was made under a mistaken belief that the goods had not been accounted for. Although the rule did not expressly cover that exact situation, its scheme supported refund of the duplicate duty payment through the place of origin, where the refund claim was to be processed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty paid twice on the same goods was payable at the place of origin or at the place where the goods were finally warehoused and cleared.

Analysis: Rule 156B contemplated demand of duty at the warehouse of removal when goods were not accounted for at destination and also contemplated refund to the consignor once the goods were shown to have been satisfactorily re-warehoused. The goods here were in fact re-warehoused at Kanpur and duty had already been paid there, so the later demand and payment at the place of origin was made under a mistaken impression that the goods had not been accounted for. Although the rule did not expressly cover this precise contingency, the scheme of the rule supported refund at the end where the second payment was recovered.

Conclusion: The refund claim was payable at the place of origin for processing, and the assessee succeeded.

---