Special Additional Duty refund cannot be denied by circular where the notification imposes no monthly filing bar

A circular could not deny Special Additional Duty refund on the ground that two claims were filed in one calendar month where Notification No. 102/2007-Customs did not impose that limitation. The refund condition could not be expanded by administrative instruction beyond the notification itself, so rejection on that basis was unsustainable. However, because the record showed a factual dispute on whether the relevant invoices and proof of VAT or CST payment were available, the claim required verification by the adjudicating authority. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration after checking payment of VAT or CST.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied on the ground that two refund claims were filed in one calendar month under the CBEC circular; (ii) whether the matter required remand for verification of payment of VAT or CST against which the refund was claimed.

Issue (i): Whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied on the ground that two refund claims were filed in one calendar month under the CBEC circular.

Analysis: The refund claim was made under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14/09/2007. The notification did not prescribe a condition that refund claims could be filed only once in a month. A circular could not add a restriction not found in the notification itself.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on the basis of the circular was not sustainable, and the assessee was entitled in principle to claim refund of Special Additional Duty.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for verification of payment of VAT or CST against which the refund was claimed.

Analysis: The record indicated a factual dispute as to whether the corresponding invoices and proof of payment of VAT or CST were available. That factual aspect required verification by the adjudicating authority before final grant of refund.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of payment of VAT or CST and for fresh consideration of the refund claim.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the legal objection to rejection based on the circular, but the refund claim was sent back for factual verification before final relief could be granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A circular cannot impose a refund condition that is not contained in the governing notification, and entitlement to SAD refund remains subject to verification of the underlying VAT or CST payment.

---