Refund under customs notification: missing invoice endorsement cannot defeat entitlement, while certificate defects may require remand for verification.

Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was discussed on two procedural objections: the absence of an endorsement on sale invoices stating that no credit had been availed did not, by itself, justify denial of refund, as that objection had already been settled against such a requirement. By contrast, where the Chartered Accountant certificate was said to be in the wrong format, the proper course was limited verification by the adjudicating authority after giving the assessee an opportunity to furnish the certificate in the required form. The article thus treats invoice endorsement defects as insufficient to defeat refund entitlement, while certificate-related compliance issues may require remand for factual examination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could be rejected on the ground that the sale invoices did not contain endorsement that no credit had been availed in respect of the imported goods; (ii) Whether rejection of refund on the ground that the Chartered Accountant certificate was not in the proper format was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could be rejected on the ground that the sale invoices did not contain endorsement that no credit had been availed in respect of the imported goods.

Analysis: The objection based on absence of endorsement on the sale invoices had already been settled by the Larger Bench in Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. and followed in subsequent decisions. On that settled position, the absence of such endorsement could not by itself justify denial of refund.

Conclusion: Rejection of refund on this ground was held unsustainable and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether rejection of refund on the ground that the Chartered Accountant certificate was not in the proper format was sustainable.

Analysis: The certificate issue required verification of the necessary details against the requirements of the notification. The proper course was to afford the assessee an opportunity to produce the certificate in the required form and to have it examined by the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for limited verification of the Chartered Accountant certificate, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim succeeded on the invoice-endorsement objection, while the certificate-related objection was sent back for fresh verification, leaving the appeal only partly allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural objection to refund under the notification cannot be sustained where the absence of invoice endorsement does not defeat the substantive entitlement, while defects requiring factual verification may warrant remand.

---