Contractual evidence and refund limitation require fresh adjudication where service classification and disallowance are inadequately explained.

Classification of the service and entitlement to refund could not be finally determined because the relevant contract copies were not before the authority; the matter required production of the best available evidence and fresh examination of the contractual terms and surrounding circumstances. The partial rejection of the refund claim as time-barred also required reconsideration because the basis of the disallowance and the adjustment of payments were not clearly explained, and the limitation and mistake-of-payment contentions needed de novo adjudication. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the classification of the service rendered and the consequential entitlement to refund could be sustained without the contract copies said to be necessary for determining the true nature of the transactions; and (ii) whether the part rejection of the refund claim as time-barred required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the classification of the service rendered and the consequential entitlement to refund could be sustained without the contract copies said to be necessary for determining the true nature of the transactions.

Analysis: The refund claimant was required to produce the best available evidence to establish the nature of the contracts. Since the contract copies were not available before the appellate authority, the issue could not be independently examined on merits. The proper course was to permit production of the requisite contracts and re-examine the classification in the light of the contractual terms and surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The issue was not finally decided and was remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether the part rejection of the refund claim as time-barred required reconsideration.

Analysis: The time-bar rejection was found to need re-examination because the basis for arriving at the disallowed amount was not clearly explained and the manner of adjustment of payments required a detailed speaking order. The applicability of the statutory refund limitation and the related contention that the payment was made by mistake were therefore left for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for de novo adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh decision after affording the appellant an opportunity to produce the relevant documents and be heard in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of taxable service and the entitlement to refund depend on contractual evidence not placed before the authority, and the basis of limitation-based rejection is inadequately explained, the matter warrants de novo adjudication with observance of natural justice.

---