https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115206 Refund was recognized in principle where goods were cleared on payment of duty, returned for further processing, and cleared again, resulting in double duty payment. The absence of the transporter's duplicate invoice copy was treated as a Rule 173L defect, but it did not by itself defeat substantive refund entitlement when the factual position showed duty had been paid twice. The limitation requirement under Section 11B remained a statutory condition, so the refund claims had to be verified for timeliness by the original authority. The limitation issue was therefore remanded for de novo examination and decision. en-us Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2012 16:47:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115206 Refund was recognized in principle where goods were cleared on payment of duty, returned for further processing, and cleared again, resulting in double duty payment. The absence of the transporter's duplicate invoice copy was treated as a Rule 173L defect, but it did not by itself defeat substantive refund entitlement when the factual position showed duty had been paid twice. The limitation requirement under Section 11B remained a statutory condition, so the refund claims had to be verified for timeliness by the original authority. The limitation issue was therefore remanded for de novo examination and decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115206