Substantive excise refund cannot be denied for procedural lapse where excess duty arose from a notification misprint.

Refund of central excise duty paid in excess because of a printing mistake in the notification was held admissible despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure. The Tribunal accepted that duty had been paid at 10% instead of the correct 5% under Notification No. 41/95-C.E. due to the misprint, and that the excess payment was undisputed. It held that the assessee was entitled to the substantive refund benefit, and that procedural lapse in claiming the credit through the proper route could not defeat that entitlement. The Revenue's challenge failed, while the penalty for procedural non-compliance was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of central excise duty paid in excess due to a printing mistake in the notification was admissible despite non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: The duty had been paid at 10% instead of the correct 5% because of a misprint in Notification No. 41/95-C.E. dated 16-3-1995, and the excess payment was not disputed. The assessee had subsequently sought credit of the excess amount through the RT-12 return and had taken the credit in the personal ledger account. The Tribunal held that the refund arose from the notification's printing mistake and that the assessee was entitled to the refund, while the procedural lapse did not justify denial of the substantive benefit.

Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible notwithstanding the procedural irregularity, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing the assessee's substantive refund benefit and sustaining only the penalty for procedural non-compliance was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive refund cannot be denied merely because the assessee did not strictly follow the procedural route where excess duty was paid due to a notified printing mistake and entitlement to refund is otherwise undisputed.

---