SAD refund on imported goods remains available despite missing invoice endorsement when VAT/CST is duly paid on resale.

A trader-importer that pays Special Additional Duty on imported goods, sells them on commercial invoices, and discharges VAT/CST on the subsequent sale remains entitled to refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The absence of an express invoice endorsement that credit of additional duty is not admissible was not treated as a mandatory bar where the invoices were commercial in nature and the sales tax liability had been discharged. The notification's object was treated as satisfied on these facts, and refund with consequential relief was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a trader-importer who paid Special Additional Duty on imported goods and sold them on commercial invoices after discharging VAT/CST liability could claim refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus without an endorsement on the invoice that credit of additional duty was not admissible.

Analysis: The reference already answered the question by holding that a trader-importer who pays SAD, effects subsequent sale on payment of VAT/ST liability, and issues commercial invoices without showing duty details is entitled to the benefit of the notification. The absence of a specific endorsement regarding non-availment of credit does not by itself defeat the refund claim where the commercial invoices and the subsequent tax discharge satisfy the object of the notification.

Conclusion: The condition regarding endorsement was not treated as a mandatory bar in these circumstances, and the refund claim was held admissible.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the refund of SAD under the notification was granted with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A trader-importer who pays SAD on imported goods, discharges VAT/CST on their subsequent sale, and issues commercial invoices without indicating duty particulars remains entitled to refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus even if the invoice does not expressly record that credit of duty is not admissible.

---