SAD refund claims remain admissible where invoice endorsement is procedural, conversion factor objections fail, and limitation is computed excluding payment date.

Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was treated as admissible where the domestic sale invoice did not separately disclose the duty element, because the non-availment endorsement was considered a procedural requirement rather than a condition defeating relief. The objection based on conversion factor was also found unsustainable in light of earlier Tribunal authority and a connected order. On limitation, the one-year period was computed excluding the date of payment of SAD, so a claim filed on the anniversary date was within time. The refund denials were therefore set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of SAD could be denied for want of endorsement in the domestic sale invoice that Cenvat credit was not admissible; (ii) whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground of conversion factor; and (iii) whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for being filed after one year from the date of payment of SAD.

Issue (i): Whether refund of SAD could be denied for want of endorsement in the domestic sale invoice that Cenvat credit was not admissible.

Analysis: The refund claim was examined in the light of the Larger Bench ruling that the endorsement regarding non-availment of credit is only a procedural requirement and that the object of the notification is satisfied where the invoice does not separately indicate the duty element. The relevant condition under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was treated as substantially complied with when the commercial invoice did not disclose the duty component, and the absence of an express endorsement was held not to defeat the exemption.

Conclusion: The objection based on absence of endorsement was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim could be rejected on the ground of conversion factor.

Analysis: The conversion factor issue was held to be covered by an earlier Tribunal decision and by the order passed in a connected matter, leaving no basis to sustain rejection of the refund on this ground.

Conclusion: The rejection based on conversion factor was unsustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the refund claim was barred by limitation for being filed after one year from the date of payment of SAD.

Analysis: For computing the one-year period, the date of payment was excluded, so the period ran from the following day. On that computation, the claim filed on the anniversary date was within time and could not be treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims were held to be admissible and the orders denying refund were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund condition requiring endorsement on the invoice is procedural when the invoice otherwise does not disclose the duty element, and limitation computed from the date of payment excludes that date for the purpose of calculating the prescribed period.

---