Refund eligibility under customs law cannot be denied for missing credit endorsement where invoices show no duty element; factual issues were remanded.

Refund under the customs refund notification could not be denied merely because the invoice lacked a separate endorsement on non-availment of Cenvat credit, since the absence of any duty element in the invoice was treated as sufficient compliance and the claim was allowed on that point. However, discrepancies between the bill of entry and the sales invoice had to be reconciled to verify whether the imported goods were actually sold for refund purposes, so that issue was remanded for factual examination. The question of unjust enrichment, including the correctness of the chartered accountant's certificate and whether duty incidence had been passed on, was also remanded for fresh consideration after opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund could be denied for want of an endorsement in the invoice stating non-availment of Cenvat credit; (ii) whether discrepancies between the bill of entry and the sales invoice required reconciliation before grant of refund; (iii) whether the issue of unjust enrichment required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether refund could be denied for want of an endorsement in the invoice stating non-availment of Cenvat credit.

Analysis: The Tribunal applied the principle that where the invoice itself does not disclose a duty element, a separate endorsement regarding non-availment of Cenvat credit is not indispensable for claiming refund under the relevant customs refund notification. The absence of a duty indication in the invoice was treated as sufficient compliance with the condition relating to credit non-availment.

Conclusion: This issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether discrepancies between the bill of entry and the sales invoice required reconciliation before grant of refund.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that differences between the import documents and the sale invoices could not be ignored and had to be reconciled to verify whether the imported goods were actually sold for the purpose of refund. The matter therefore required factual verification before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: This issue was remanded for reconciliation and fresh consideration.

Issue (iii): Whether the issue of unjust enrichment required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the correctness of the chartered accountant's certificate and the question whether the incidence of duty had been passed on were matters requiring examination by the adjudicating authority. The assessee was directed to produce evidence and the authority was required to decide the issue after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: This issue was remanded for reconsideration.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim succeeded on the endorsement issue, while the remaining factual questions were sent back for verification and decision by the adjudicating authority.

---