Refund claim cannot be denied for repeated document production when departmental records already verify duty payment and entitlement.

Refund could not be rejected merely because every original supporting document was not re-produced, where duty payment and claim particulars were already verifiable from PLA entries, gate passes, proforma credit records and documents earlier filed with the department. The Tribunal held that insistence on repeated production of records already available in departmental files was unjustified, and the refund rejection was unsustainable. Once entitlement to refund was accepted, the assessee was also held entitled to applicable interest because the claim had been wrongly denied and remained pending for a long period. The refund and interest were therefore directed to be granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim could be rejected for non-production of all supporting documents when the available records and departmental copies were sufficient to verify payment of duty; (ii) whether the assessee was entitled to refund with interest.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim could be rejected for non-production of all supporting documents when the available records and departmental copies were sufficient to verify payment of duty.

Analysis: The refund arose from the implementation of the Supreme Court decision in the assessee's own case. The record showed that duty had been paid through PLA entries and by debit in the proforma credit register, and that copies of gate passes and other relevant papers had already been filed with the department. The Tribunal followed the settled view that, where the relevant documents had been earlier submitted to the department and were available from the departmental record, refund could not be denied merely for non-production of every original record again. The lower authorities' insistence on further documents was therefore unjustified.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim on the ground of non-production of documents was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to refund with interest.

Analysis: Once the duty payment and refund entitlement were accepted and the claim was found to be wrongly rejected, the Tribunal directed that the refund be processed on the basis of the existing PLA entries and gate passes already with the department. In view of the long pendency, the refund was also directed to be paid with interest as applicable.

Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to refund along with applicable interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the department was directed to grant the refund and pay it with interest within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be denied for want of repeated production of documents when the duty payment and supporting records are already available with the department and are sufficient to verify the claim.

---