Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit cannot be denied on jurisdictional or invoice objections without due opportunity to respond.

Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit cannot be rejected on a jurisdictional objection where the invoices were issued in the name of an unregistered branch office, particularly when the objection was not raised in the deficiency memo and the claim was otherwise supported by the refund notification and prior Tribunal precedent. Rejection on invoice-related grounds was also unsustainable because no show cause notice was issued and the assessee was not given an opportunity to establish the genuineness of the claim. The refund rejection was therefore annulled and the assessee was held entitled to the sanctioned refund, with interest to follow the applicable statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of unutilised Cenvat credit could be rejected on the ground that the invoices stood in the name of an unregistered branch office and the claim was said to be not maintainable at Mumbai; (ii) whether rejection of the refund on invoice-related objections was sustainable when no show cause notice was issued and the assessee was not given an opportunity to establish the genuineness of the claim.

Issue (i): Whether refund of unutilised Cenvat credit could be rejected on the ground that the invoices stood in the name of an unregistered branch office and the claim was said to be not maintainable at Mumbai.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection had not been raised in the deficiency memo, and no attempt was made to transfer the refund application to the competent Commissionerate if the claim was believed to be not maintainable at Mumbai. The question of jurisdiction ought to have been considered at the threshold. The refund claim based on invoices issued in the name of an unregistered branch office was supported by prior Tribunal decisions and was also consistent with the departmental notification relied upon.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on the ground of non-maintainability at Mumbai was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the refund on invoice-related objections was sustainable when no show cause notice was issued and the assessee was not given an opportunity to establish the genuineness of the claim.

Analysis: The remaining objections related to mismatch and impropriety of invoices. The assessee had not been afforded an opportunity to meet these objections because no show cause notice was issued before rejection of the refund claim. In the absence of such opportunity, the assessee was denied a fair chance to substantiate the refund claim, and the order confirming rejection could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The rejection on invoice-related grounds was set aside and the assessee succeeded on this issue as well.

Final Conclusion: The refund rejection was annulled and the assessee became entitled to the sanctioned refund, with interest to be governed in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim cannot be rejected on a jurisdictional or documentary objection without first affording the claimant due opportunity to meet the objection, particularly where the claim is otherwise supported by the governing refund notification and prior judicial precedent.

---