SAD refund cannot be rejected merely for missing invoice endorsement where precedent already settles the notification requirement.

Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied solely because the imported-invoice endorsement stating that no credit was availed is missing, where binding precedent has already settled the interpretation of the refund condition. Applying that line of authority, the tribunal held that absence of the specified endorsement was not a valid ground to reject the claim on the facts presented, and the refund denial was unsustainable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as permissible in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of special additional duty could be denied for want of an endorsement on the invoices that no credit had been availed in respect of the imported goods, as required under para 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007.

Analysis: The issue had already been settled by earlier decisions relied upon by the appellant. Following that line of authority, the requirement of endorsement was not accepted as a ground to deny the refund in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The denial of refund was unsustainable and the appeals were allowed, with consequential relief as permissible in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the controversy is covered by binding precedent on the interpretation of the refund notification, the refund claim cannot be rejected solely for absence of the specified invoice endorsement.

---