https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43444 The High Court quashed the Assistant Collector's order denying a refund claim based on the non-production of certain documents, emphasizing the acceptance of secondary evidence when primary documents are unavailable. The burden of proof for refund claims under Section 11B shifted to the petitioner, with pending applications governed by the 1991 amendment. The Court directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the claim within three months, allowing the writ petition with costs. en-us Fri, 27 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:52:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43444 The High Court quashed the Assistant Collector's order denying a refund claim based on the non-production of certain documents, emphasizing the acceptance of secondary evidence when primary documents are unavailable. The burden of proof for refund claims under Section 11B shifted to the petitioner, with pending applications governed by the 1991 amendment. The Court directed the Assistant Collector to reconsider the claim within three months, allowing the writ petition with costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 27 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43444