https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264909 Refund of an excess deposit cannot be refused merely because original TR 6 challans are unavailable, where the deposit is otherwise established from the adjudication record, departmental attested copies, and the assessee's accounts. The absence of the original challans or a claimed mismatch in reconciliation was not by itself a valid ground to deny refund. However, the sanctioning authority must still verify unjust enrichment before granting refund, including whether the duty incidence was passed on. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on entitlement and unjust enrichment. en-us Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264909 Refund of an excess deposit cannot be refused merely because original TR 6 challans are unavailable, where the deposit is otherwise established from the adjudication record, departmental attested copies, and the assessee's accounts. The absence of the original challans or a claimed mismatch in reconciliation was not by itself a valid ground to deny refund. However, the sanctioning authority must still verify unjust enrichment before granting refund, including whether the duty incidence was passed on. The rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration on entitlement and unjust enrichment. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264909