Refund claims cannot be rejected solely for missing GP-1 triplicate when the document is only an administrative safeguard.

A refund claim under central excise law could not be rejected outright merely because the triplicate copy of GP-1 was not produced, since that requirement arose from executive instructions and not from Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The missing document was treated as an administrative safeguard against duplicate refund, not a statutory condition, and the claim could still be examined on merits where other materials enabled verification. The matter could proceed subject to an affidavit undertaking that no parallel claim had been made and a limited bank guarantee to guard against double payment. The rejection was set aside and the case remanded for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim could be rejected in toto merely for non-production of the triplicate copy of GP-1, when the requirement flowed from executive instructions and not from the statute.

Analysis: The requirement to produce the triplicate copy of GP-1 was treated as an administrative safeguard against duplicate refund and not as a statutory condition under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The absence of that document did not by itself justify outright rejection where the Department had other materials to ascertain the claim and could adopt suitable safeguards against double payment. The matter could be entertained on the basis of an affidavit undertaking non-claim elsewhere, supported by a bank guarantee for a limited period, and then examined on merits.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected solely for non-production of the triplicate GP-1. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits after compliance with the stated safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative instruction meant to prevent duplication of refund cannot, by itself, defeat a refund claim when the statute does not prescribe the document as a mandatory condition and the claim can otherwise be verified and safeguarded.

---