Minor invoice description differences do not defeat SAD refund when records establish identity and correlation of the goods.

Refund of Special Additional Duty under the notification cannot be denied solely because the sale invoice description differs in minor, non-material terms from the import description, where the documentary record establishes that the imported and sold goods are the same. The Tribunal relied on import documents, duty payment challans, invoices, VAT/CST acknowledgements, self-declaration, chartered accountant's certificate and a correlation certificate to hold that identifiable goods and supporting correlation are sufficient. On that basis, the rejection of SAD refund was set aside and relief was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied merely because there was a minor discrepancy between the description of imported goods and the description in the subsequent sale invoices.

Analysis: The refund claim was supported by the import documents, duty payment challans, import invoices, sale invoices, VAT/CST acknowledgements, a self-declaration, a chartered accountant's certificate, and a correlation certificate. The dispute was only about description differences such as "CS-500e Livescan Fingerprint Device" vis-a -vis "Cogent Finger print Scanner CS500E" and "CIS 202 Cogent Iris Scanner 202, NIST SAP; Leval 40 Iris Images" vis-a -vis "Cogent Iris Scanner CIS 202". The Tribunal followed the settled view that minor differences in description, when the underlying goods are otherwise identifiable and the supporting records establish correlation, do not defeat entitlement to the refund under the notification.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of such minor descriptive variation, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned rejection of SAD refund was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund under the SAD notification cannot be denied solely for minor, non-material discrepancies in the description of imported and sold goods when the documentary record establishes correlation and identity of the goods.

---