Computerised records and refund evidence accepted; service tax refund sustained as genuine and not barred by unjust enrichment.

Computerised records and CD evidence were accepted as admissible support for a service tax refund claim where the statutory framework recognised electronic records and the departmental rules contemplated computerised data maintained by the assessee. The refund claim was also found genuine after verification of accounting procedure, cross-checking of entries and certificate material, so the objection that the refund lacked genuineness failed. On the facts applied, unjust enrichment was held not to bar the refund in the service tax context. The order allowing refund was sustained and the revenue challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether computer data/CD produced by the assessee was admissible evidence for support of the refund claim. (ii) Whether the refund of excess service tax paid was admissible and liable to be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment or want of genuineness.

Issue (i): Whether computer data/CD produced by the assessee was admissible evidence for support of the refund claim.

Analysis: The records maintained by the assessee included computerised data, and the departmental stand that such material could not be relied upon was held untenable. The admissibility of electronic records was accepted with reference to the statutory recognition of computer records, and the service tax rules also contemplated acceptance of records including computerised data maintained by the assessee.

Conclusion: The CD/computerised records were held to be admissible evidence in support of the refund claim.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund of excess service tax paid was admissible and liable to be rejected on the ground of unjust enrichment or want of genuineness.

Analysis: The refund claims had been subjected to departmental verification, including examination of the accounting procedure and cross-checking of the entries and certificate material. On that basis, the claim was found genuine and the factual objection that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not satisfied himself about the genuineness of the refund was rejected. The plea of unjust enrichment was also held not applicable to service tax in the circumstances relied on.

Conclusion: The refund was held admissible and the objection based on unjust enrichment failed.

Final Conclusion: The order granting refund was sustained and the revenue challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Computerised records can be accepted as evidence for refund purposes when the statutory framework recognises such records and the claim is independently verified and found genuine; the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not defeat the refund in the service tax context on the basis applied here.

---