Refund of advance duty allowed for factory closure period under court order when no manufacturing activity occurred.

Duty paid in advance for a period when the factory remained closed pursuant to a binding Supreme Court order was refundable because no manufacturing activity took place during that interval. The Tribunal followed the assessee's earlier case and held that reopening after interim protection did not alter the refund position for the closed days. A procedural lapse could not defeat the substantive entitlement to refund where the closure was compelled by court order and duty had been paid for a period in which no duty-liable manufacture occurred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of duty paid in advance for the period when its factory remained closed in compliance with the Supreme Court's order.

Analysis: The disputed refund arose from a closure of the factory during the relevant period, followed by reopening after the interim protection was granted. The Tribunal found the controversy to be covered by the assessee's own earlier case and saw no reason to take a different view. Since the factory had remained closed in deference to the Supreme Court's order, the duty paid in advance for the days on which no manufacturing activity took place was refundable.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to refund of the duty paid in advance for the closed period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a factory is closed pursuant to a binding court order and no manufacture takes place for the relevant period, duty paid in advance for that period is refundable, and a procedural lapse cannot defeat the substantive refund claim.

---