Appeal allowed for refund claim rejection due to missing TR 6 challan; Indemnity bond option, reprocessing ordered

The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim due to the non-submission of the original TR 6 challan. The appellant offered to provide an indemnity bond in place of the lost challan, but the department rejected this offer citing lack of evidence. The case was remanded for the appellant to execute the indemnity bond and reprocess the refund claim. The Member (Judicial) emphasized that if the appellant provides the bond, the refund could be sanctioned. The matter was directed to the original adjudicating authority for reprocessing within three months, concluding the appeal through remand.

---

---

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to non-submission of original TR 6 challan; Appellant's submission of lost TR 6 challan and offer of an indemnity bond; Department's rejection of the indemnity bond; Lack of evidence for the offer of indemnity bond; Remand for allowing appellant to execute an indemnity bond and reprocessing the refund claim.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim amounting to &8377; 2,84,869 due to the non-submission of the original TR 6 challan. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the refund claim on the basis that the original TR 6 challan was not provided by the appellant. The appellant claimed that the original TR 6 challan was lost and offered to provide an indemnity bond in its place. However, the department did not accept this offer. The appellant's counsel stated that although they had discussions with the department regarding the indemnity bond, they could not provide any concrete evidence to support this claim.

During the proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the non-submission of the original TR 6 challan as the reason for rejection. The Member (Judicial) carefully considered the submissions and the records, concluding that if the appellant offers an indemnity bond, the refund could be sanctioned. However, since there was no evidence of the appellant providing such a bond, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority. The direction was given for the appellant to be allowed to execute an indemnity bond against the lost TR 6 challan, facilitating the reprocessing of the refund claim. The appellant was granted a personal hearing opportunity to submit the necessary indemnity bond. The de novo adjudication was mandated to be completed within three months from the date of the order, ultimately disposing of the appeal through remand.

---