https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83820 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. en-us Thu, 27 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:45:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83820 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83820