Refund claim evidence can be proved through parallel records, so rejection for missing original challans was remanded for fresh consideration.

Refund of duty could not be tested only on the absence of original TR-6 challans where the appellant asserted payment was made pursuant to an earlier appellate order. The Tribunal noted that payment may also be proved through parallel records maintained by both the Revenue and the assessee, and that the Revenue's records should reflect discharge of the dues. As the photocopies were treated as suspicious and the lower authority had not considered such corroborative material, the rejection was set aside and the matter remanded for de novo adjudication after allowing production of parallel evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of refund claim for want of original TR-6 challans was sustainable, and whether the matter required remand for consideration of parallel evidence of payment.

Analysis: The claim arose from duty deposited pursuant to an earlier order allowing the appellant's appeal. The refund was rejected below on the ground that the original challans were not produced and the photocopies appeared suspicious. The Tribunal held that payment could also be evidenced by parallel records available with both the Revenue and the appellant, and that the Revenue's records would reflect payment of the dues. It therefore considered it appropriate to give the appellant an opportunity to produce parallel evidence before a fresh decision is taken.

Conclusion: The rejection was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for de novo consideration of the refund claim after allowing production of parallel evidence.

---