Procedural invoice endorsement lapse cannot by itself defeat SAD refund where substantive conditions and unjust enrichment are not breached.

Refund of Special Additional Duty under the exemption notification could not be denied solely because the sale invoices lacked an endorsement that CENVAT credit was not admissible, where the goods were cars and the buyers were not registered dealers, so the possibility of credit did not arise on the stated facts. The procedural omission did not, by itself, defeat the refund claim when no substantive breach was shown. The appellate materials, including balance sheets and a chartered accountant certificate, indicated prima facie that the duty burden had not been passed on, and the claim therefore required fresh adjudication on the complete record after compliance with the deficiency memo requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied for absence of an endorsement on the sale invoices stating that CENVAT credit was not admissible, and (ii) whether the refund claim required fresh adjudication in view of the documents produced on the question of unjust enrichment and other deficiency memo requirements.

Issue (i): whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied for absence of an endorsement on the sale invoices stating that CENVAT credit was not admissible.

Analysis: The invoices did not separately show SAD, the goods were cars, and the buyers were not registered dealers for CENVAT purposes. On those facts, the question of the buyers availing CENVAT credit did not arise. A procedural omission in the invoice endorsement, by itself, could not defeat the refund claim where the substantive conditions for the exemption were otherwise not shown to be violated.

Conclusion: The non-endorsement did not materially affect the refund claim and could not by itself justify rejection, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the refund claim required fresh adjudication in view of the documents produced on the question of unjust enrichment and other deficiency memo requirements.

Analysis: The balance sheets and chartered accountant certificate produced before the appellate authority indicated the amount as recoverable and asserted that the burden of SAD had not been passed on. Those materials showed a prima facie case against unjust enrichment. At the same time, the original authority had not examined the claim after full compliance with the documents sought in the deficiency memo, so a fresh decision on the complete set of records was necessary.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be re-examined by the original adjudicating authority after production of the stipulated documents, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was not finally rejected on merits and the dispute was sent back for fresh decision by the original authority after full verification of the relevant documents.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund under the SAD exemption notification cannot be denied merely for a procedural lapse in invoice endorsement where the substantive conditions are not shown to be breached, and the claim must be re-adjudicated on complete records when the materials on unjust enrichment are prima facie supportive.

---