Special additional duty refund cannot be denied for multiple monthly claims when the refund notification imposes no such restriction.

Refund of special additional duty was held admissible where the claims were supported by the required documents and there was no defect on merits. Rejection based only on the filing of more than one refund claim in a month was unsustainable because the refund notification did not require a single consolidated monthly claim. The departmental circular could not add a condition not found in the notification governing the refund. The Tribunal therefore upheld the allowance of the refund in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of 4% special additional duty was admissible where more than one refund claim was filed in a month, notwithstanding the departmental circular relied upon by the original authority.

Analysis: The refund claims were supported by the requisite documents and there was nothing on record to show that they were not otherwise payable on merits. The only basis for rejection was the filing of more than one claim in a month with reference to the CBEC circular. The notification governing refund did not prescribe a restriction that only one consolidated claim could be filed within a month. A circular cannot impose a condition not found in the notification under which the refund is claimed.

Conclusion: The refund was admissible and the rejection could not be sustained; the decision allowing refund was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---