Rebate and refund claims cannot be rejected solely for non-production of original AR 4 forms; verification and remand were required.

Rebate and refund claims were held not to be rejectable solely because original AR 4 forms were not produced before the adjudicating authority. The text notes that the forms had already been submitted to another excise office and were moving through the departmental transmission chain to the Ahmedabad office, so the absence of originals did not justify final rejection without checking the departmental record. The rules also contemplated transmission of AR 4 forms between offices. The claims were therefore remanded for fresh examination on merits after verification of the original forms.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of rebate/refund claims for non-production of original AR 4 forms was justified, and whether the matter required remand for verification on merits.

Analysis: The claims were rejected only because the original AR 4 forms were not produced before the adjudicating authority. The record showed that the forms had been submitted to one excise office and were in the departmental chain of transmission to the concerned office at Ahmedabad. In these circumstances, the absence of the originals before the deciding authority did not justify final rejection without examining whether the documents were already available within the departmental record. The appellate authority ought to have considered this aspect or remanded the matter for verification. The rules also contemplated transmission of AR 4 forms from one office to another.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claims on the sole ground of non-production of original AR 4 forms was not sustainable, and the matters were remanded for fresh examination of the claims on merits by verifying the original AR 4 forms.

---