SAD refund cannot be rejected for missing witness signatures where the prescribed documents satisfy the notification requirements.

Refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007 cannot be denied merely because the agreement between the importer and the consignment agent lacks witness signatures. The claim was supported by the prescribed documents, including sales invoices, VAT/ST payment evidence, chartered accountant certificates and the importer's declaration. Since the notification and the relevant circular did not require witness signatures, and did not make filing such an agreement a condition for refund, rejection on that ground was unsupported. The refund was therefore maintainable with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of SAD could be rejected merely because the agreement between the importer and the consignment agent did not bear the signatures of witnesses.

Analysis: The refund claim was supported by the documents required under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.9.2007, including the sales invoices, VAT/ST payment evidence, chartered accountant certificates and the importer's declaration. The only basis for rejection was the absence of witness signatures on the agreement. The Agreement was signed by both contracting parties, and neither the statutory notification nor the relevant circular required witness signatures or even mandated filing of such an agreement as a condition for refund. The rejection, therefore, rested on an unwarranted and unsupported requirement.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of missing witness signatures in the agreement, and the appellant was entitled to refund with consequential relief.

---