Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to refund of the entire deposit of Rs. 28,60,546/- (including pre-deposit) with interest under the statutory provisions and Circular, or only to a refund limited to 7.5% of the amount involved in the appeal as held by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Analysis: The appellate tribunal order setting aside the adjudicating orders produced a consequential refund claim. The refund claim was partially rejected on the ground that original bank/TR-6 records were not legible or available and the department could not verify payments from bank records. The applicable circular provides that attested xerox copies of documents evidencing payment suffice for refund processing and places responsibility on the department to maintain records to facilitate verification of deposits. The adjudicating authority's reliance on non-availability of bank records, despite submission of self-attested xerox challans and the tribunal's earlier order in favour of the appellant, does not negate entitlement to refund where the department has failed to maintain verification records.
Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to refund of the entire deposited amount of Rs. 28,60,546/- along with applicable interest under Section 35FF of the Central Excise Act, 1944; the impugned partial allowance limiting refund to 7.5% is set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate order entitles an assessee to refund and the assessee furnishes attested xerox copies of payment challans, denial of full refund on the sole ground of the department's inability to retrieve bank records is not sustainable; the department must maintain records and attested copies suffice for refund with interest under the statute and administrative circular.