Original Bill of Entry not mandatory for SAD refund when the claim is otherwise verifiable and duplicate claims are prevented.

Original Bill of Entry was not a mandatory prerequisite for refund of Special Additional Duty where Notification No. 102/2007-CUS and the connected circulars did not expressly require its original production. The circular's reference to defacement was treated as directory, because its purpose was only to prevent reuse of the same document for a second claim. A refund could not be denied merely for non-production of the original Bill of Entry if the claim remained verifiable through other documents and the anti-double-claim safeguard was preserved. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the refund direction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the original Bill of Entry is an essential document for processing refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS read with the connected circulars.

Analysis: The refund scheme did not require submission of the Bill of Entry in original. The circular relied upon contemplated defacement of the Bill of Entry only for the purpose of preventing reuse of the same document for a second refund claim. The use of the expression "may" in the circular indicated that defacement was permissive and directory, not mandatory. A missing original Bill of Entry, therefore, could not by itself defeat a legitimate refund claim when other available documents were produced for verification.

Conclusion: The original Bill of Entry is not a mandatory document for processing the refund claim. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed and the direction to grant refund was sustained in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the refund notification and circulars do not expressly make the original Bill of Entry a mandatory prerequisite, its non-production cannot deny refund if the claim can otherwise be verified and the anti-double-claim safeguard is preserved.

---