SAD refund under Notification 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied for procedural lapses when substantive conditions are met.

Refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be denied for non-submission of original invoices where soft copies of retail sale invoices were furnished and the Board's circular accepted electronic submission under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The hard-copy requirement was treated as substantially complied with. Refund also could not be rejected for absence of an express invoice endorsement that Cenvat credit was inadmissible, because the goods were sold to individual consumers, the importer was not a registered excise dealer, and the invoices did not separately show SAD. The object of preventing double benefit was therefore met, and the refund claim was held admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could be denied for non-submission of original invoices and for absence of an express endorsement on the sale invoices that Cenvat credit was not admissible to the buyer.

Analysis: The claim was supported by soft copies of retail sale invoices, and the Board's Circular No. 16/2008-Cus. recognised electronic submission of invoices in view of Section 4 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The requirement of producing hard copies was therefore treated as satisfied. On the endorsement issue, the goods were sold in retail to individual consumers, the importer was not a registered excise dealer authorised to pass on Cenvat credit, and the invoices did not separately indicate SAD. In such circumstances, the object of the notification condition-to prevent double benefit by refund and credit availing-was held to be substantially met. The reasoning adopted the principle that substantive exemption benefit should not be denied for procedural or technical lapses.

Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible and rejection on both grounds was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied for procedural non-compliance where the material conditions are substantially satisfied and no possibility of double benefit by availment of Cenvat credit is shown.

---