https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119638 Refund cannot be denied on a mere procedural lapse where double payment of duty on the same consignment is established and undisputed. The goods were first cleared in bond to the consignee's warehouse and duty was again paid on clearance, showing that duty had been discharged twice on the same transaction. In that setting, the omission relating to Annexure A under the prescribed procedure did not defeat an otherwise valid refund claim, because the consignee's clearance payment was in order and the substantive entitlement to refund stood proved. The rejection of the claim on technical grounds was therefore not justified. en-us Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:53:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119638 Refund cannot be denied on a mere procedural lapse where double payment of duty on the same consignment is established and undisputed. The goods were first cleared in bond to the consignee's warehouse and duty was again paid on clearance, showing that duty had been discharged twice on the same transaction. In that setting, the omission relating to Annexure A under the prescribed procedure did not defeat an otherwise valid refund claim, because the consignee's clearance payment was in order and the substantive entitlement to refund stood proved. The rejection of the claim on technical grounds was therefore not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119638