Exemption eligibility upheld while refund claim was remanded for fresh verification of documents and unjust enrichment.

Exemption under Sr. No. 21(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST was treated as already settled in the assessee's favour and remained undisturbed, so the transported goods were accepted as exempt. The refund claim, however, required supporting evidence to show duty payment and to test unjust enrichment. Because the supporting invoices and bilties were not fully examined and the explanation for incomplete documentation was inadequate, the refund issue was remanded for fresh consideration on the original and sample records.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods transported by the appellant fell within the exemption under Sr. No. 21(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST and (ii) whether the refund claim could be rejected for want of supporting documents and verification of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the goods transported by the appellant fell within the exemption under Sr. No. 21(d) of Notification No. 25/2012-ST.

Analysis: The exemption issue had already been decided in the appellant's favour by the Commissioner (Appeals), and no challenge had been brought by the department against that finding. The appellate record therefore treated that determination as final, and the goods described in the show cause notice were accepted as eligible for the exemption claimed.

Conclusion: The exemption eligibility was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim could be rejected for want of supporting documents and verification of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: A refund application must be supported by documentary or other evidence showing payment of duty and enabling scrutiny of unjust enrichment. The Tribunal found that the appellant's explanation for non-production of complete documents was not sufficient, but also noted that the sample invoices and bilties placed on record had not been properly considered by the lower authorities. In these circumstances, a fresh examination of the refund claim was required.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for reconsideration of the refund claim on the basis of the original and sample supporting documents.

Final Conclusion: The exemption finding stood confirmed, but the refund dispute on documentation and unjust enrichment was sent back for fresh adjudication, leaving the refund claim to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the service tax regime must be supported by evidence sufficient to establish duty payment and to test unjust enrichment, and where the appellate record indicates that relevant documents were not properly examined, remand for fresh verification is appropriate.

---