Refund claims under central excise cannot be rejected merely for non-production of original duty-paying documents when payment of duty is otherwise shown.

Where the central excise statute did not require original duty-paying documents to accompany a refund application, a refund claim could not be rejected merely because attested or photostat copies were produced. The need for originals was treated as a departmental verification procedure to prevent double use of documents, not an inflexible statutory condition. Because such procedural requirements were directory and departmental instructions could not override the law, non-production of originals by itself did not defeat proof of duty payment or the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim under central excise law could be processed on the basis of attested or photostat copies of duty-paying documents, and whether the statute or rules required original documents to accompany the refund application.

Analysis: Section 11B, as it then stood, did not prescribe any mandatory set of documents to accompany a refund application. The requirement of original duty-paying documents was treated as a matter of departmental procedure intended to verify payment of duty and prevent double use of the same documents. Such procedural requirements were held to be relaxable and not inflexible conditions. Departmental instructions could not have the force of law, and their absence or non-production of originals could not by itself defeat a refund claim where payment of duty was otherwise shown.

Conclusion: The refund could not be rejected merely because original duty-paying documents were not produced, and the procedural objection did not raise a referable question of law. The reference application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute does not mandate original duty-paying documents for a refund claim, documentary requirements imposed only by departmental procedure are directory and cannot override the right to refund.

---