Documentary evidence in refund claims must be examined before rejection; unanswered records justify remand for fresh adjudication.

Refund claims under Notification No. 52/2011-ST cannot be sustained for want of original export documents or alleged lack of co-relation unless the adjudicating authority first considers the documentary evidence placed by the claimant. The Tribunal noted the appellant's assertion that relevant records, including ARE-1 and Shipping Bill details with container numbers, had been filed, but the lower authority had not examined them before rejecting the claim. The proper course was remand for fresh adjudication after considering the documents relied upon by the claimant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim under Notification No. 52/2011-ST was liable to be rejected for want of original documents and failure to establish co-relation between the export consignments and the service tax invoices.

Analysis: The refund was rejected by the lower authorities mainly on the ground that the appellant had not produced original export-related documents and had not established document-wise co-relation between the bills, invoices, challans and specific export consignments. The Tribunal noted that the appellant asserted filing the relevant documents along with the refund application, including ARE-1/Shipping Bill details and container numbers, and found that the lower authority had not considered those documents before deciding the claim.

Conclusion: The rejection could not be sustained in the absence of consideration of the documents placed by the appellant, and the matter was required to be examined afresh by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be finally rejected without considering the documentary evidence relied upon by the claimant, and where such evidence has not been examined, the proper course is remand for fresh adjudication.

---