Refund cannot be denied for missing invoice endorsement where substantive conditions are met; defective certification may justify limited remand.

Refund under the notification could not be denied merely because the sale invoices lacked an endorsement that no credit had been availed, as the substantive condition was otherwise treated as satisfied; rejection on that ground was therefore unsustainable. On the chartered accountant certificate issue, the defect was treated as a verification matter, and the appellant was given a further opportunity to furnish the certificate with the required particulars before the adjudicating authority. The refund denial was thus set aside in part and the matter remanded for limited verification on the supporting certificate.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund could be rejected for want of endorsement on the sale invoices that no credit had been availed in respect of the imported goods; and (ii) whether rejection of refund was justified on the ground that the chartered accountant certificate was not in the proper format.

Issue (i): whether refund could be rejected for want of endorsement on the sale invoices that no credit had been availed in respect of the imported goods.

Analysis: The issue was held to be covered by the Larger Bench decision relied upon by the appellant and followed in later decisions. The absence of such endorsement was treated as an insufficient basis to deny refund under the notification.

Conclusion: Rejection of refund on this ground was held unsustainable and the appeal succeeded to that extent.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of refund was justified on the ground that the chartered accountant certificate was not in the proper format.

Analysis: The certificate required verification for compliance with the notification, and the appellant was found entitled to one further opportunity to produce the certificate with the necessary particulars before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for limited verification of the chartered accountant certificate.

Final Conclusion: The refund denial was set aside on one ground and the matter was sent back only for limited verification on the other ground, resulting in partial allowance of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund under the notification cannot be denied merely for absence of invoice endorsement where the substantive condition is otherwise satisfied, while defect in supporting certification may warrant limited remand for verification.

---