Procedural lapses cannot defeat SAD refund where invoice-bill of entry correlation is otherwise established.

Refund of special additional duty cannot be denied solely for procedural defects where the essential refund conditions are otherwise met. Omission of bill of entry particulars in sale invoices was treated as a rectifiable lapse, and correlation between invoices and bills of entry could be established through supporting records such as the certificate and correlation chart. The circular relied on by the Revenue was read as not barring re-credit in the manner assumed, so procedural requirements could not override substantive refund entitlement. The order allowing the SAD refund was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of special additional duty could be denied on the basis of procedural lapses, alleged non-correlation of invoices with bills of entry, and the interpretation of the relevant customs circulars governing re-credit of SAD refund.

Analysis: The refund claim was rejected for want of bill of entry particulars in the sale invoices and on the view that the circular governing re-credit of SAD barred such benefit. The appellate authority found that the assessee had not been afforded adequate opportunity, that the omission in the invoices was a rectifiable procedural defect, and that correlation could be established through the certificate, correlation chart, bill of entry and invoices. It further held that the circular relied upon by the adjudicating authority did not prohibit re-credit in the manner assumed, and that procedural requirements could not override the substantive refund entitlement where the essential conditions were otherwise satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the procedural grounds taken by the Revenue, and the order allowing the refund was sustained.

---