https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72483 Rule 156B was read as permitting duty demand at the warehouse of removal when goods were not properly accounted for, and refund to the consignor once re-warehousing was satisfactorily shown. As the goods were in fact re-warehoused at Kanpur and duty had already been paid there, the later payment at the place of origin was made under a mistaken belief that the goods had not been accounted for. Although the rule did not expressly cover that exact situation, its scheme supported refund of the duplicate duty payment through the place of origin, where the refund claim was to be processed. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2011 18:12:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72483 Rule 156B was read as permitting duty demand at the warehouse of removal when goods were not properly accounted for, and refund to the consignor once re-warehousing was satisfactorily shown. As the goods were in fact re-warehoused at Kanpur and duty had already been paid there, the later payment at the place of origin was made under a mistaken belief that the goods had not been accounted for. Although the rule did not expressly cover that exact situation, its scheme supported refund of the duplicate duty payment through the place of origin, where the refund claim was to be processed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72483