Refund claims require verification of available records before rejection, with remand and hearing where supporting documents need examination.

Refund claims should not be rejected outright merely because original bills, challans and supporting records were not immediately produced; verification must be carried out on the available material. Where the claimant files certified copies and offers access to voluminous records, the authority should examine sample documents, seek CA certification, and, if needed, conduct further verification at the claimant's office after giving a hearing. The Tribunal set aside the outright rejection and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification and fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim could be rejected outright for want of original documents and whether the matter required remand for verification of the claim.

Analysis: The refund was declined on the ground that the original bills, challans and other supporting records were not produced and that the claim required verification. The appellant stated that the records were voluminous, that certified copies had been filed, and that the department could inspect the documents at its office. The Tribunal held that the refund claim should not have been rejected in that manner. It directed production of original documents for a representative period, verification of sample records, CA certification in support of the claim, and, if necessary, further verification by departmental officers at the appellant's office. The appellant was also to be given an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was set aside and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification and fresh consideration.

---