Special additional duty refund cannot be denied merely for multiple claims against one bill of entry

Refund of special additional duty could not be refused merely because multiple refund applications were filed against the same bill of entry. The operative notification did not impose any bar on filing more than one claim, and the restriction arose only from an administrative circular meant to aid procedure. Such procedural instruction was treated as non-mandatory where it would defeat substantive entitlement. The claims could be clubbed and examined together on merits, so the objection was regarded as purely technical. The refund denial was therefore not sustainable, and the matter was remanded for decision on the refund claims on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of special additional duty could be denied on the ground that multiple refund claims were filed in respect of the same bill of entry, in the light of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 and Circular No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008.

Analysis: The refund was rejected only because the claimant had filed more than one refund claim against a single bill of entry. The Notification did not impose such a restriction, and the limitation flowed only from the Board's circular issued as an administrative instruction. Such procedural instructions are not ordinarily to be treated as mandatory when they are intended only to aid administration, and they should not be applied so as to frustrate substantive entitlement. The claims could also be clubbed and examined together on merits, so the objection was viewed as purely technical.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on the ground of multiple claims was not sustainable, and the matter was rightly remanded for decision on the refund claims on merits without insisting on the procedural objection.

---