Double duty payment on same goods supported refund, with document correction falling outside Rule 173L.

Duty paid twice on the same goods was treated as an erroneous payment, and a refund claim filed within the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act was admissible. Correction of documents was not covered by Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules, and the proper route for bringing duty-paid goods back into the factory would have been Rule 173H or Rule 51A. Since the Revenue did not dispute the double payment, the refund claim had to be considered on that basis and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund was admissible where duty had been paid twice on the same goods, even though the goods were brought back into the factory for correction of documents and not for the purposes contemplated by Rule 173L of the Central Excise Rules.

Analysis: Correction of documents was not covered by Rule 173L, and the proper course would have been to follow Rule 173H or Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules for bringing duty-paid goods back into the factory. However, the Revenue did not dispute that duty had in fact been paid twice on the same goods. Double payment on the same goods constitutes erroneous payment, and where a refund claim is filed within the limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, the claim is to be considered on that basis.

Conclusion: The refund was admissible and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---