Refund claims and documentary proof: timely filing and invoices were sufficient, so rejection for missing agreement was unsustainable.

A refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. was treated as timely where it was filed within one year and the extended time limit introduced by the later circular and Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. applied. The claim could not be rejected for non-production of the foreign commission agent's agreement because the notification did not make that document a mandatory requirement. Invoices issued by the foreign agent were sufficient evidence of the service, so the absence of the agreement alone could not defeat the refund claim. The document states that refund entitlement followed, with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6-10-2007 in the light of the extended one-year time limit; (ii) Whether refund could be denied for want of a copy of the agreement with the foreign commission agent when the invoices were available.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation under Notification No. 41/2007-S.T. dated 6-10-2007 in the light of the extended one-year time limit.

Analysis: The refund claim was filed within one year. The extended period prescribed through the subsequent circular and Notification No. 17/2009-S.T. was applicable, and the claim therefore fell within the permissible time limit.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be denied for want of a copy of the agreement with the foreign commission agent when the invoices were available.

Analysis: The notification did not require production of the agreement as a mandatory document. Invoices issued by the foreign agent were sufficient to support the refund claim, and absence of the agreement could not by itself justify rejection.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be denied on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to refund with consequential relief, and the rejection of the refund claims was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the notification cannot be rejected when it is filed within the applicable limitation period and the prescribed notification does not make production of the service agreement an essential condition, especially where invoices adequately evidence the service availed.

---