Procedural lapse cannot defeat excise refund where duty was paid twice on the same goods.

Refund of excise duty was treated as admissible where the assessee had paid duty twice on the same goods, even though the prescribed procedure was not strictly followed. The order applies the principle that a procedural lapse should not defeat a substantive entitlement when the underlying duty burden has already been borne and retention of the second duty payment would be unjustified. The reasoning also notes that the department indicated the transaction could have been completed under an alternative procedural route, reinforcing that refund should not be denied on technical grounds.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of excise duty was admissible when the assessee had not strictly followed the prescribed procedure, but the duty had in substance been paid twice on the same goods.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the assessee's failure to proceed under the precise procedural route could defeat the refund claim. The order notes that the goods had already suffered duty and the later process did not justify retaining duty twice over. Without entering into a definitive ruling on the exact applicability of Rule 173-L, the decision adopts the principle that a procedural lapse should not deprive an assessee of a substantive benefit otherwise due. The reasoning also recognises that the department itself indicated that the process could have been carried out under another procedural route, which reinforced the conclusion that the refund should not be denied on technical grounds.

Conclusion: The refund was held admissible despite the procedural defect, and the assessee succeeded on the issue.

---